TheJellyGoo

Experience is what makes people learn. If they haven't even learned on how to get out of silver how much is their experience worth? Threat level is more than just aim hence it's named threat and not aim level which includes all different skills (e.g. game-knowledge etc.) into one estimate. Sure some have more aim than brain and for others it's the opposite and somewhere inbetween. But why should someone trust an opinion of someone who is clearly lacking in some of those departments (hardware issues and the like being the exception)? Also assuming someone has really weak mechanical abilities but is very understanding of the game how far can he possibly understand gunplay if he cannot utilize aim to the fullest? Skills can't simply be separated into aim/tactic/map because they influence each other. The prelude is, as you have nicely explained, that even some of the gold players aren't worth listening to. However your conclusion is wrong since in turn that doesn't validate silvers - it pushes them further down!

Careful meeting the coworker whose duty it will be of reviewing the flood of "video evidence" that is coming. He will know who opened the gates.

Oof, that gave me chills to the bones... oh wait

Not the part of your post that it was directed at as a friendly jab.

Congrats you just disproved your own argument. No one ever denied that there will always be a meta, it has all been elaborately discussed before. NTEC being the favor of the month years is spearheading the current meta and it's time for a change hence the call for a nerf. You just called it the strongest weapon (broken) yourself. I really appreciate you doing the work for me by refuting your own argument but it gets kinda boring at some point so please come up with some actual viable counters, ok? What rationality? Old APB was designed for slower times. Buffing multiple other weapons instead of nerfing just the best ones will lead to a worse change in overall gameplay. I do agree that the worst guns should be made viable but they shouldn't be buffed in a way that makes them outperform the current best (unless those are nerfed prior).

Can we not start a new discussion thread? We have one eight pages long thread here and people against the nerf stopped posting because they couldn't back up their arguments. So don't even try the same bs here again...

Let's completely ignore every valid point that has been presented over the last eight pages as to why the nerf is reasonable and bring up the same foolish mock since post 1 chapeau!

Didn't know words have an expiration date

You underestimate peoples stupidity!

You're a typical apb forum goer now. Let's not be in denial with that second part :^)

Why do you keep opening the same thread?

What's the benefit of this exploit? Why do people "use" it?

gl to everyone. Let me see your worst! (dunno if this thread was supposed to be submissions only )

There are usually two situations where one gets a bounty. You either stomp your opposition hard in which dying once just prolongs their misery for one more stage to be farmed. Or you have a prolonged equal matchup with good balance where people reach bounty solely on the length of the mission leading to one side inevitably being screwed over towards the crucial finish. In both cases it doesn't provide any positive reinforcement. What's the point of that? So you can kill an afk player at spawn a couple times? Would be just an obsolete feature considering the amount of players in a district (minus in mission)

Did they change the SWARM? Wasn't it in contention for the most poop gun in the game?

"Half-decent" as in max rank, Armas bought out, never been banned players that can simply shoot better than you and your friend without even needing to rely on crutches of the month like the nfas. I know it's pointless to argue with you about that since you're clearly in denial but I will keep reminding you every time you pretend to know otherwise. Smth. about bliss and such...

How do you manage to defeat them if you afk against every half decent opposition?

But why would that matter if you could just stay away from it and "outplay" it even easier than the NFAS - wouldn't that be a fair enough tradeoff for a secondary? Just answer that. You must know the answer since it is literally your argument. But if you cling to the "developers admitted", aren't the current shotgun changes officially recognized as working to good and not final hence "broken"? While that counts for every shotgun it has become clear that the NFAS profits the most from it and is thus main focus of attention. OCA doesn't counter you. They are just better than you because you're not the (veteran) gold you think you are.

I'm saying a broken weapon is a broken weapon no matter what category it is (didn't say they should be equal?)! In return could you answer my question? Why did the Yukon need a nerf? Secondary or not - just don't get close, right?

Yukon was just as much of a facehugging weapon yet would you say it was totally balanced since it was arguably even easier to "outplay"? The range argument isn't a get free card when the game is based around objectives that force you to engage.

How does the option in being able to tactically outplay others transfer to the direct performance of a weapon? Sure you can outplay some potatoes... but we shouldn't balance weapons around potatoes should we? What if you meet someone who has an actual brain and uses the nfas? Otherwise the answer to every weapon complain would be to just not get hit - would solve all the issues. Not saying that the things you mentioned shouldn't be considered in the broader scope but before all that you need to take a look at the weapons raw performance.

Oh, it's this time of the year again!

What stats? I still can't see what you're referring to.

Or you know... you could learn how to play without relying on cheap crutches and then get all whiny when deserved balance changes are applied.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to? Could one ask for some red arrows pointing me in the right direction?