TheJellyGoo

So following your argumentation 1shot should be a non issue since people can just walk out of the radius anyway. After all what are 2m 1shot radius compared to a reduction from 10m to 7.5m radius. It all comes back to my point that when just comparing the 2-shot ability which poses a far higher threat than the odd one-shot here and there that the CD is stronger. Comparing stats isn't all in a balance discussion if one doesn't know how they apply ingame and what it means in terms of viability. I still don't know where you get the 4s fuse time from. Both have a fuse time of 5seconds and the same projectile speed/flying arc. Seriously? You argue that CD is weaker due to potential misses? Lethal doesn't suffer "same fate at times" it's the same gun. That's not even a valid point for a balance discussion. They are the exact same weapon in that regard in fact CD is stronger due to the larger max radius giving more leeway for an actual hit then the lethal counterpart. See what this means? CD is the stronger GL apart from the mechanic that it still requires an arrest (even optional with lethal sidearm; also elaborate on other drawbacks please). So all your points that you're trying to make lead back to CD being the more powerful gun? So come again why I ask for it to be brought in line. It's almost like the game is clearly not intended to be played solo (it's even disabled in the games mechanics). So maybe just maybe that should be partly taken into account when thinking about balance. A real pity that you keep trying to slander my position by trying to pull it into those subjective levels of favoritism when all I ever did was give you hard objective facts. But I will gladly disprove your last accusation too: I mained enf and maxed cop before even starting a crim. Also no idea who you think I am but I started on Obeya and migrated to Patriot before the merge (what does that even matter? More of opinion based standpoints?).

We are all aware that lethal can one shot in a very small radius. Subject of discussion is the far wider max radius of CD version though. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it takes more time to stun (when it's both in 2shot area) though. Unless you count possible modifications in? Not sure either why you don't expect me to know these spots when I've clearly played since dawn. Then again I wouldn't consider it maining OPGL when people switched to it in the last stage when it was time to siege a spot where the lucky team to first reach the item ran off to. I wouldn't call it the OPGL meta either unless we also want to announce the ALIG meta when people switch to it just to counter carrunners? Additionally I would appreciate it if you comprehend what I'm writing in context to what Lily wrote and what I quoted. I'm not saying that stuns past 50m are useless. In fact it was Lily that hinted at it and which made me question his argumentation between other ltl-weapons and the opgl-cd. So thanks for teaching me the obvious but maybe you wrote that to the wrong person. Also my group and I have successfully run full ltl vs other 4men clangroups (all gold just in case you are starting to expect some more stuff) so sorry not sorry but I do know how to properly use ltl. Or if you'd like me to tell you in your words: I don't expect you to know advanced gameplay so keep sticking to your support role.

Literally said that there were more metas inbetween, NTEC special case though since it was always there but never stood out as much as the others who had their rises and falls. Still don't remember an actual OPGL meta but ok guess we won't know until those "top ranks" back that up (happy to get proven there). Anyway you just talked over my points and went on with making pointless arguments about LTL that have no impact on the OPGL discussion. All LTL points are valid for all LTL weapons so why even bring it up. I totally agree with those (and you) and it's not what I'm trying to get to. Fact is stun radius is out of norm and stronger than any lethal counterpart throwing it out of the line which is LTL being weaker than lethal counterparts. That's how it should be. So yes, even while making a gun that is not the best weaker means it will be balanced correctly.

Sarcasm aside but then you pull a real life argument as logic for computer game balance? Who cares if it's tear gas. It's range is supposed to be determined for balance sake not real life comparison. How do you even live with the fact that all lethal guns aren't a potential one shot lethal? And no you do NOT need one direct hit. You need two hits within the radius of 6,5m or if you get a half decent hit you can hit anywhere in the max 10m radius. So if all you can do to defend it is downplay it's potential then you already lost your credibility. Hm, must have missed that meta between Shotguns, Scout-Jumpshots, Troublemaker and some other inbetweens. When exactly was that OPGL meta again? Not the weapons fault if you stun people out off your arrest range. Maybe just don't use it there and wait for your opportunity? I mean I feel like this shouldn't even be an argument. I'm not going to complain that Shotguns are useless because I cant kill people at +50m. So how come LTL range nerf is bad when you're supposedly not able to arrest people that far away? Could you get some unity into your arguments because you contradict yourself. But I guess HVR support role was also a thing for you?

I agree, small changes as presented by Ellix can have a huge impact on the quality of gameplay or bring new life into a repetitive daily grind (after all we do play the maps for years by now)

Not everyone likes grenade launchers (or the category of explosive primaries) since they are a very specific kind of playstyle that limits a players ability to perform at his best. Better players can use other weapons much more to their advantage while weaker players have a much easier time reaching the maximum potential with explosives. This especially applies to the O-PGL 79 CD since it is broken. Not as much as outright OP but as badly balanced since the explosion radius is to wide. Simple matter of game mechanics: movement distance to travel time to fuse time to explosion radius. Just because a weapon isn't the best in the game doesn't mean it is balanced and not broken. It has it's own limitations for it's intended role and should be handled like that.

Or you know... maybe it's because it's a level 15 unlock in a role most people don't grind since LTL is consistently weaker then their lethal counterpart. But sure let's ignore context and use the final numbers without knowing how we get those. Very bad statistical work. It has one drum less spare ammo (which could be adjusted), the tts is the same as ttk (unless one shot wonder) and the explosion radius would bring it in line with all other explosive projectiles. So if you tell me that brining it in line with every other weapon (a bit weaker as lethal counterparts due to exclusive to enforcer) makes it useless then continue to ignore logic. Yes, instead of being a 2shot stun until 6,5m!!! (which is roughly the average max radius of all explosives it would reduce that by 1-2m since the curve would obviously be also adjusted. Largest part would still be a 2shot radius stun. But yes, definitely radical so let's meet at 7,5m (25% reduction) and lethal OPGL radius.

Yeah no, that's not how you balance. You balance your game around the good players because otherwise they are the ones breaking it for everyone else. Very good advice. You can add "just don't get hit" and "just kill your opponent first" to that guide. Quite simple: reduce the explosion radius by 30-40%. Dunno why people actually try to defend the stun opgl. It's pretty broken.

I'm not twisting your words. First sentence was in reply to you. Second was said in general since recently it is a reoccurring opinion on these forums and I just foreclosed those more radical thoughts. Last part see my first sentence.

Doesn't mean that you're not supposed to do what you can along the way until that goal is achieved. So can we finally move on from that smart idea to make cheating in APB legal and nonpunishable.

You have no deadline here!? Don't publish a version you're not even convinced of by yourself - criticizing it from the get go. A lot of negativity for a presentation. Start strong and confident the criticism will come by itself.

Anyone remembering my point from the SPCT thread? It's already happening, I member...

Some ideas for further improvement...

Maybe to snarky? I do though since denying a varying personal experience would be absurd.

Sure, let's roll with that under the premise that individuals lack the required skills to properly utilize weapons to their maximal potential thus making a subjective judgment. That judgment may very well be correct for their personal experience and stay true under those conditions. Personal preference is never wrong. Objectively it won't change the fact what the NTEC is capable of when pushed to its limited compared to a FAR. That fact was established by years of playtime. by all sorts of users.

While the individual mechanics you mention aren't wrong you still draw the wrong conclusion about what it means for it's actual performance ingame. And that is less weighted on a simple stat comparison but more on an experience based evaluation in actual gameplay.

Thanks for comprehending. There are obviously more difficult and challenging guns, or in context actual difficult "hard" guns, since more just describes the tendency here. Merely used NTEC as comparison since it belongs to the same classification as FAR.

It's the opposite. FAR is very forgiving and easy to use making it a newbie friendly gun. One can reach it's full potential without much effort but the peak will never be able to compete at the same level as more difficult guns like the NTEC for example.

It's a tricky one. The game clearly intends for the player to be restricted in his movement speed by applying a speed penalty when carrying items. Jumping with it circumvents those restrictions by the simple use of basic functions implemented and provided by the game. Two ways to classify them: 1. Clearly not intended so patch it and add restrictions that prevent the circumvention (eg as happened with large items) 2. Not a bug but a feature. It can add to games by leaving these gimmicks in the game to increase skillcaps The issue with APB is that those functions heavily influence the balance of gameplay for the better. Missions with large items have been a disaster since the "fix" (this is also an issue of mission balancing (imba droppoints, ...). The game is to fast paced to slowly walk items through whole areas. Being able to jump with them made it possible to be faster and take shortcuts over certain props. Same would happen with doors. Being a sitting duck on those choke-points is to much of a disadvantage and can already ruin an attack wave of a stage where you only get +-3 chances. Not reaching endstage shouldn't be the norm and should only happen when teams are of much different skilllevels (to easy to defend). Usually a solution somewhere between those two options delivers the best results. Provide a certain level of gimmicky to nurture the games learning experience while not providing a complete nullification of set restrictions as they are there for a reason. It takes knowledge and experience to balance and fine tune those games mechanics hence we were stuck with those problems for years.

Never heard of that? The only invisible things I bump into are the bugged cars in financial parking.

Kinda offtopic, no? Anyway, mission objective (vehicle) spawns into another vehicle. Game glitches out (known as car humping) and slingshots the obj up on the roof.

And I understand that. I never said that it will fix everything. It is intended to bridge some time until the EU since it doesn't require much manhours unlike all the other suggestions for larger overhauls. We don't know how much it could improve the general enjoyment of gameplay if we don't try it. Having high and mid levels players around the same threatlevels as right now clearly creates issues. Would this change solve those? I don't know, maybe some, most probably not all considering how limited it is in correlation to other systems and their current issues (matchmaking/playerpool/...). Still seems like worth a try. At the very least it's a change that keeps the players busy until EU rollout. Every system has it's flaws that also includes your dynamic solution. Assuming you have a larger part of the playerbase of the same skillevel as your threat levels are designated to house it will force players into the wrong threat creating a wave which stretches itself through the whole system like a domino effect just to mention one. How you deal with the issues that those system create makes them either a success or not.

That would imply that G1 always did what could and should have been done to improve on those smaller systems. How long did people ask for HVR changes again? Now, I agree that it might very well not be the end-solution to all our threat issues but it seems worth a shot. Many games have done it since threat inflation is a natural occurrence. If you can't find that magical key for the perfect system just move the bar higher. Even if it is short-lived, we can gain more data for when they go for the complete overhaul. Should we dismiss all changes even small ones just because the big underlying problem isn't solved yet?

Impossible to achieve achievements are indeed the devils work! In full support.

Merry Christmas My present to you is to not embarrass you by explaining why you just made a fool of yourself. Just take a deep breath, analyze my words from a neutral point of view, realize why pretty much every veteran comes to agree with them and simply accept it.