Tenginima

Name 1 The core of an older game, with slower TTK and overall gameplay. FC is for the "new APB", hence why it works better there, the proof is in the pudding. I deny it being OP, as even you agree with my logic, the gun is not the problem the gun is the Symptom of the Disease that is missions. I keep on giving reasons to prove my point that it's the current "core" (aka missions" of APB that is balanced improperly, and that more pressing issues should be pursued instead, such as nerfing car gameplaying. The other reason why the NTEC should remain untouched, they touch it, chances are it won't be changed back. So even when you consider that "it's currently not the case", it still doesn't change the fact that nerfing the NTEC is technically wrong, as it's simply lazy.

Fightclub is the most raw balanced form of APB as you can get when it comes to pure weapons balance due to the map structure primarily. Sure, is it perfect? Ofc not, but it is the closest thing that we have to an actual testing district that isn't purely terrible. Which is why I primarily used FC as an example to demonstrate that the NTEC is simply the symptom of a disease, that disease is the current state of APB (mostly mapwise). Simply nerfing the NTEC does not solve the issue, as the FAR will take its place and rifles will be even more dominant, and car gameplay will be even stronger. We treated the Symptom, not the Disease. This does not prove that the NTEC is op, it does however point to the fact that missions are simply require to many variables at once for you to factor in gun-wise, which makes it so that you need a jack of trades gun. People don't realize that the FAR already beats the NTEC fully auto, and is overall a "quicker" weapon in it's gameplay. However, the FAR is weaker at longer ranges, hence why the NTEC gets picked over the FAR when it comes to missions, not due to relative strength of the 2 guns, but due to the fact that you need to offer up some spray and pray ability, for range consistency. you're miss quoting me, I did say that due to car gameplaying (one of many reasons) the ntec is strong. It is cute that you are trying to defame me and put things that i didn't say, this is the quote of my first post, it is still there. And I have obviously not changed my mind in 2 days time. It was a nice try though.

What's your proof that I had nothing better to do with my time? I did say why it's wrong, if you read my post I stated very clearly what's wrong with missions, because of how APB is currently structured I also said that in order to fix it, APB needs a major overhaul. But to state it more clearly. We could start by adding more cover to the ingame world, more in and out cover in order to approach some situations easier. Nerfing cars, making sure that health can't regen in them while hurt. Those are some of the things that can be done. Fix weapon inbalances, by balancing the map. I've stated why their opinion is wrong with my post, hence why I went through FC as an example and how that ties in with missions, and why nerfing the NTEC does not solve the problem with the game. The fact that FC is more balanced is just because cars is a non issue, car gameplaying is not a thing. And you fix car gameplaying with one of the suggested solutions that I made in the 2nd paragraph. You do protect objectives in FC, atleast in Abington, that's where all the kills are. Sure, you protect them because of kills, while in missions you protect them to win, small difference, but makes for a pretty big gameplay difference. I also did go over the teamsize, and how it's ironically making it more balanced, because of the size. This is not true for missions because the size of the mission does not scale with the amount of players, hence why anything above a 4v4 can be really badly balanced, aswell as certain 2v2's. The skirmish aspect is relevant though, because the maps are more balanced. The amount of information is relevant, as it proves my points, by giving examples, few people even bother to give a proper response, because they are wrong, but don't want to admit it and rather do a "TLDR" thing. And I am not even sure why you want a thanks, why is this important? You simply corrected me, and that's that, I appreciate the help, but felt no need to say thanks, is this even an issue lol?

Man, I don't have anger management issues, I have ego issues. And yeah, i've fought you plenty times in fc, you're good, compared to the rest of the game at least, but compared to the top dogs you aren't even close. And I didn't pick you 2 out randomly, you 2 are just the ones that bug me the most. And about the FC stats, I mostly use niche or non-meta weapons, SWARM for instance, is just an easy way to the top because I like the gun, same with SHAW, which is far from op. Meta guns makes it easier yeah, but even with that logic, I still ruthlessly beat most players in FC no matter what their weapons are. And again, if we use that logic, let's say in Abington ,16 out of 20 players on your team uses Meta weapons, and you use them as well, and consistently outperform them all, even when they are good. That, no matter how you put it is skill. That's great if you can hold the ground, you're still outplayed however, that is my point. And I can speak for Revo, which, if you read my entire post, my opinion is already clear on that. The "git gud" argument from my side still holds ground, because just like how CSGO pro's are the ones that should decide what is changed and what isn't in CS, the same principle applies here. Fact is, a vote should be made by the defacto best players, to clear up this mess. Again, you're good, you're just not at the top of the hierarchy, which is OK in the sense that I won't tell you that you're a worthless human, you just don't know enough of balance. And untop of that, I could say the same about the SWARM, i'm able to outgun must guns in the game with that gun, but it's far from OP. So you playing a gun a lot does not make it OP, simply you got more experience with it, ofc it will seem strong then. But even if that wasn't the case, unless it is blatantly OP like the AMG, then your words have no merit, because you are you. And for the record, I am super full of myself, because I am tired of people not talking sense and I think that a "because I am this and that" is a good way of talking, especially when you got a damn good track record, as I said to the person that said that my post was a dumpster fire, I am not here to change your minds, I am simply here to stroke my own ego, and to tell people they're wrong and do that task with facts and reason. And I do it like an pleasant fellow because it's like therapy for me.

My approach matters not, for I am not here to change the opinions of those that are wrong, I am simply here to state facts because I had nothing better to do at the time. And FC stats are very relevant, as a weapon sandbox environment it is extremely relevant. I've already stated why the game is the way it is, and about what you mentioned about the game not being balanced around a lot of players in 1 missions is more true for missions. However smaller skirmishes in FC are very close to missions. And about the "ammo is essentially irrelevant" point, you all have ammo boxes, which, effectivly leads to infinite ammo. And there's no excuse to not at least have Medium ones. This dumpster fire of a post of mine is simply the truth, and I didn't tag them because I did not know of that function.

I love how you won't even try to dispute my claims, and the wall of text is to highlight specifics and details, kinda hard not to do a wall of text if you want to be thorough. But as I expected, you wouldn't even try because you are wrong lol. And yeah, it means that my wall of text is more valid then others. Ironically, I am saying those exact things because the NTEC still is not OP, if it was, then it would be as good if not even better in FC, which it isn't.

NTEC is fine, has always been fine, will always be fine. What people get wrong with it, especially in arguments about it, especially like Revoluzzer and Ghost is that the "git gud" argument is actually a much stronger argument that what people give it credit for. There's a reason why a captain decides where a ship goes and why it does so, much more experienced players such as myself know a lot more about game balance then the majority of others in this game. The prime reason for why the "git gud" argument is strong is because when you compare 2 weapons such as the Star and the NTEC and put them against each other, while it is true that people overhype how "difficult" it is to use the NTEC, it is, relatively speaking to the Star, "difficult to use", for the simple fact that the NTEC has recoil, the star does not, and I am talking about realistically recoil, not technical recoil. The Star can't be, in it's current state as effective as the NTEC, due to the fact that it is 1 of the easiest weapons in the game by design. You see, there is a balance in having guns that aren't created equally, if 1 gun is easier to use, then it should be less effective then its counterparts. The Star is less effective then the NTEC, and the NTEC is superior in most ways, because the NTEC has, albeit a not very big, skill curve comparatively. Some would argue that the NTEC, doesn't represent a big enough power curve due to how "easy" it is to use. The problem with this argument is that you can bring out hundreds of examples of similar situations in APB, how the Raptor 45 is just a 50M primary Nano, or how the AMG is just a straight upgrade to the shaw, with nothing to make it more difficult to use, and you'll be stuck in an endless loop of constantly rebalancing, for the sake of rebalancing. Secondly, it's loosely based on the assumption of what is hard and what isn't in APB. Like what decides what is a "hard" gun to use? Is it recoil? Spray pattern? etc etc. People don't agree on this front, people say that it's too powerful for its intended role, making it way too powerful for other guns in their classes, the problem with this argument is that this is where the "git gud" part comes in. If you lose, to an NTEC, CQC with OCA, JG, CSG, PMG and whatnot, you are to blame, if you lose to an NTEC when you have a rifle at 60M range? You are to blame, and what's the ultimate proof of this? When you consider some of the people that use the "git gud" argument, like myself, they are at the absolute top of the hierarchy of skill in this game. AKA the people that are able to play around practically every situation, this is why our "git gud" works, and your "anti git gut" doesn't. Gametime and years spent in APB isn't the biggest factor in knowledge of the weapons sandbox, compared to skill. Skill is the biggest factor when it comes to knowledge, specifically about the weapons sandbox. What does all this mean then. It means that even if you were to nerf the NTEC, you're treating the Symptoms of a disease, not the root of it. Fact of the matter is, nerf the NTEC, as Flaws said, will simply mean that rifles, and other guns will be pushed into meta, nerfing the NTEC does not equal to a more balanced and "large" meta, it will simply mean that guns such as the OBIR, OBEYA, FAR, NSSW will be used instead of the NTEC. The problem remains, the Symptom was treated instead. And what is this problem? It is the core problem with APB's whole design. At least mission district-wise, because you see, why is the NTEC so dominant in missions? It is because of the fact that missions in themselves, favour a very specific meta, due to low TTK weapons, and little cover, that is Car gameplaying and long range rifles. APB was never designed with a quick TTK, and while raising it would be more work then it would be worth, the fact of the matter is that NTEC's and Rifles and their equivalents are so powerful because of the sole reason, that the map and certain game mechanics was never designed for quick TTK's. This is why the NTEC is chosen above so many alternatives, because when you have this meta, Car gameplaying, Rifles, Consumables (shields), Spotter, High burn fuel, Weapon Stacking, and low TTK. You end up in a situation where you either pick a really good gun for a specific situation, and eyhier do super well, or fuck all with it, or you use THE gun of choice, to be able to handle all situations, moderately well, you'll still lose to rifles at long range, you'll still lose to SMG's close, but you'll at least be able to put up "a fight" rather then nothing. Also consider teamwork, since not everyone are willing or have the capability too play in a 4man or premade team, the NTEC ofc becomes a natural choice, beacause it reduces the amount of teamwork needed and coordination, it's a natural phenomenon, when you consider missions, and their dynamic nature, which, due to their dynamic nature, ironically enough, is what is causing such a stale meta. Case and point to prove what I am saying. Look at Fightclub, specifically Abington, sure the NTEC is good there, but you'll see a lot more weapons being used, and loud out combos being used WHILE also being effective. There the NTEC is a true "jack of all trades", because of the map, all its features, powerpositions, counter powerpositions, having 1 room with around 10 different approach zones, a lot of cover at many areas, means that you can fully negate a lot of the NTEC's strengths, by using weapons that are better suited for the current room, zone and combat area. This is why I will always say this Fightclub was and always will be the NR1 PERSONAL SKILL mode for apb, as it is holy dependent on your personal skill, way more then your team. Missions on the contrary are Team based, hence why you can have a subpar team with great individual players, lose to less skilled individual players, but that are more coordinated and work better as a team. Secondly, Fightclub is the true playground and testing ground for APB's gun sandbox. In FC, almost, everything is viable, due to the nature of the maps, and the skill involved with each player. Ofc there will be exceptions to the rule, such is always the case, but the large majority of weapons do find some success in FC, due to the fact that FC is just simply a more balanced version of the "New APB" (New APB as in when G1 took over, made the game quicker by adding the sprint shooting, lowering ttk and whatnot). This is why FC, and the gun knowledge you get from FC is a lot more relevant to the "disease" of APB, because it shows that, the reason why certain guns are picked over others, are more or less because of the current structure of missions, which again, proves the fact that nerfing the NTEC is not the solution to the problem, when in FC, the NTEC isn't even a problem. And lastly when it comes to FC, which also ties into the "git gud" and why some people can use it as a strong argument and others can't. Take me as an example, for years now in a row, i've been the absolute top dog in FC, there is almost not a single time where I do not perform at least great compared to the majority of players in FC. I am literally MVP or at least at the top 3 almost every single game, no matter the circumstance, no matter the opposition, and no matter the match. There are OFC exceptions, i'm only human, even I can make mistakes, and sometimes I just want to goof around. But the proof is in the pudding, my consistency in FC is extremely rare, there are very few players that even come close to my consistency and even fewer that reach it and surpass it. Point i'm trying to make? Time spent in a game does not equal skill, that's why people like Ghost and Revoluzzer are sadly, out of their league when it comes to this game, veterans yes, at the high end of skill? No. Relics of the past as I like to say, their feedback is good, but with all due respect, neither of you 2 stand a chance against many of the players that are even bellow me skill-wise, in FC, missions, I can't comment on, but in FC you are out of your league. This is why while you are still allowed to have your opinion, you are factually wrong, your arguments are wrong, when people like me can even make the SWARM seem like an OP weapon, then the fact of the matter is that my opinion, and my words carry more weight. I'm saying this both to stroke my epeen, cause i'm that mood, I don't feel humble today, but I will also be honest. I'm coming after you 2 specifically, because you 2 are the 2 people that I see talk about the NTEC the most, and your arguments are invalid.

Problem with maining certain weapons does not equal to you being good with them or know how to counter said weapon well. The people that use all of APB's tools at hand are the ones that will know a lot more about how to counter x y and z. Sure, OBIR is a beast, one of the strongest guns in the game, strength however, does not equal being OP. SWARM is one of the best LMG's in the game, yet no one use it? Why because people refuse to leave their comfort zone. Funny thing is, if it wasn't for the hilarious OPness of the AMG, then the SWARM would be at the absolute top, due to the fact that it has a predictable recoil pattern, meaning that you can effectively shot it with little - no recoil. And at the end of the day, what goal will nerfing the OBIR accomplish? Making it more in-line with what it was intended to perform at? Long range? We had that remember? Way back when, when g1 changed weapon ranges and added the way stronger weapon drop-off. Annnddd what happened? The HVR and NTEC with IR3 became king, because way fewer guns could compete, which also ironically, made long range rifles such as the OBEYA and OBIR a lot stronger, since yet again, Assault rifles, just got outclassed at those ranges. What am I getting at? That when you streamline weapons so hard into very specific roles, the one gun that has more utility over others will ALWAYS be picked. This is where the damn NTEC craze started to begin with. because it was just good enough at most ranges to be The top dog for almost all guns. Almost every gun should be somewhat viable outside their intended role, it adds to the dynamic of the game and reduces clunkyness, also somewhat reduces minmaxing. So if you do this for the OBIR, it will be a similar effect but reversed, and again, let's keep it f ucking real, how often do you really get killed by an OBIR at every range, compared to other guns more suited for said task? It's fewer then you think, but salt, as always, will be a much more deciding factor then what's actually correct. Basically, if you touch ranges or nerf (most guns) rangewise (i.e how they perform outside of their intended role, not just max range) you will, more or less just promote guns like the NTEC and its versions really. At the end of the day, that's exactly why we have this current meta, the messed up range system from way back when. They are relevant, and even when you discard just numbers, you get my theoretical type of response instead, the result is the same.

Indeed, thank you for putting it through this way, way better then what I did really. But yeah, you know how it is, ignore all the people that actually know how to play the game ; P

Incredibly busted changes, yet again, both the community and currently LO does not understand the balance of APB and why a lot of it Should not be tempered with. The 1 good thing from this is ofc the idea of the Low yield change, i've always said this to people around me, Low yields are fine on all aspects EXCEPT blast radious, they are suppose to be Low Yield afterall, the damage should not be touched due to the fact that honestly, it would just gimp the nades when you consider CA3. Blast radious is the only change needed, so test A is far superior compared too test B. Now now now, the OBIR changes, right, where to start? Firstly, I find it so funny, that a gun that is barely used compared to other meta guns, NTEC, JG, OCA, etc, is being nerfed. First of all the OBIR already had a nerf way back when with it's firerate nerf, (which in itself was a crap nerf, but that's a discussion for another time since APB was a different game back then). Which coupled with the OBEYA nerf put them both on par with eachother and other longrange weaponry. Now firstly, the change to secondary switching is a baffling nerf, as it not only makes the game more clunky and unresponsive, and with lag, WILL increase the current 0.5 to more time while playing due to latency. Firerate nerfs, and nerfs overall to mobility (in most cases) aren't proper well made nerfs, as they make the game more clunky, and god knows how clunky APB already can be at times, if you really want to nerf the OBIR, something very trivial like jump accuracy is a lot more relevant, everything else is just bizarr. Why is this you might ask? if you shot someone with 1 burst and then switch to your secondary, you cut your TTK in half basically. Well, that's the argument at least, usually coupled with "well the same applies to the scout so". The problem with this line of thinking is that, while yes, on paper you're clearly cheesing something that the gun balance didn't think of, making a long range rifle into a viable CQC weapon, you are missing vital, critical points about other things AROUND the gun. APB, like many games, aren't just black and white, just because A gun has X Y Z that is on paper "OP" doesn't make so in practise. So let's take an example, we're assuming that both players are equally good here, and that RNG is relatively low, for each gun's intended role. So if player A) uses an OCA and let's say FBW, and player B) uses an OBIR and FBW. if both of these players, are playing in CQC, Realistically speaking, if the OCA player knows his opponents gun, and knows what it is capable of, he will either expect a jumpshot out of cover switching to his FBW, or a corner pop FBW combo, wwhich would be the 2 most likely combos. Alright, so how realistically speaking, how will the OBIR win this victory over a CQC monster? Well he really only got corner popping as and option and as mentioned jumpshoting, Jumpshoting at this range (5 - 10M) with HS3 will be harder, not impossible, but harder, that coupled with him having to land 3 perfect shots from his FBW in a row, is very, very unlikely to win, unless the OCA user chokes real bad, or is just overall bad. Corner popping then? Well that can be mitigated by simply tossing 1 uncooked nade at his cover, wait a little till the timer closes in to 0 and push. The biggest chance of victory for the here for the OBIR user is to cornerpop, which in itself is still a disadvantage at such a close range against an OCA, the OCA user will have to do something really bad or stupid in order to lose a fight like that. As a matter of fact at that range, it would be more beneficial for the OBIR user to use a more long range supporting secondary instead, like 45. FBW, Thunder and stock showstopper. What about 15 - 20m? Well here the OBIR has a much bigger chance at winning, but again, it comes into how to play around a corner rather then the OBIR itself (Just like every gun in the game). Which is also a factor most people forget about, Corners. Corners is one of the biggest defensive advantages a person can have, ANY gun will be far superior behind corner, Long, short or medium range, it is all the same. However, if the guy is out in the open? at 15 - 20m - no chance of winning, ESPECIALLY if the OCA user switches to a secondary. And what about the corner at 15 - 20m? Cooking nades and throwing cooked nades, combining them both is the best combo, while running between bursts effectively. The times the OBIR wins over CQC weapons is when the OBIR gets the drop on them first, which due to its burst nature, will OFC make it a very competitive weapon in such instances, but the same can be said about the JG, OSCAR, Carbine, hell, even the damn CAP 40 is good when that is considered. Just like all guns, the OBIR is a lot better at a "first strike" scenario due to its burst nature, which can give the illusion of being "OP" due to the secondary switch. Funny thing is, if you really die a lot to that combo, ESPECIALLY if you use CQC guns, sorry to say it bud, but you're just really trash. APB was designed as a game where teamwork is a large part on solving "gun problems" but even when playing a lot of solo, taking care of CQC OBIR's is a lot easier then let's say CQC OSCAR's, Carbine users, OCA's etc etc. Point is, sure, you can cheese the OBIR's TTK with a secondary, truth is, the time it takes from the burst, to the switch, to being forced to land 3 perfect shots to reach maximum efficiency is super hard (compared to just using a gun optimized for CQC). Point is? Sure, OBIR can be used very effectivly CQC, but CQC weapons and even mid range ones will outplay it, just like everything, it's up to the player, there's a reason you don't see silvers just owning everyone with a modded or stock OBIR, and even the really good players with it, will STILL not win against an equally good player using a CQC gun, so no, OBIR's CQC ability is far from op. And while we're at it, what's the deal with the NFAS eh? Complaining about the OBIR's CQC capabilites, yet, the NFAS still stands as one of the best CQC weapons in the game currently, for all the wrong reasons mind you. You can't apply rayscaling to an automatic shotgun, or shotguns at all for that matter, it makes IR3 to powerful on them. So yeah, nerf the OBIR's secondary switch, compare to how many times you die by that compared to a 15m JG 2 shot

Hmm, fair enough, that's a shame

Have you tried just "whispering" them via the scoreboard, but instead of having /W you just replace it with /report. Or did I missread it?

To be frank, I like the gamemode, despite its flaws, I just wish stats were tracked in the event districts

Well it looks like we mostly agree on most points, refreshing to say the least to actually have a productive discussion! But yes, I think having it in FC would be a good start, and just keep it there for the while being.

Random? Not quite. A simple fix to that would be to simply make the UI display what weapon the OPP is holding, no matter what it is. That and ofc, in missions, most likely if they use other weapons then their own loadout, it will most likely be your teams weaponry. Thus not making it as random as it seems. Secondly, it can also be used as a form to turn the aggressors weapons against themselves, they use OSMAWS? Well kill they guy and pick it up (ofc it can't be R required). Not only that but it also funnily enough mitigates a little bit of a problem with APB and that is it's balance. We both know that APB is not a fully balanced game when it comes to guns, however, a side effect of this system, would allow some guns to not be as "unbalanced". As it would be a fight fire with fire situation. Not perfectly mind you, but not terrible either. It would especially mean that newer players would be able to get their hands on well modded Meta Guns, such as a IR3 HS3 MS NTEC etc. Ofc they would have to implement it in such a way that the guns do not take priority over missions pick-ups, ladder climbing, fence jumping etc. You'll have to excuse my english, i'm very tired. Merged. All in all i'll be heading to bed, i'll reply tomorow.

I support weapon drops as simply, due to how they're currently implemented, it works just fine. I can't think of a good counter argument to why weapon drops are bad, other then "hurr durr my gunz are mine!"

That is a very poor argument. "it doesn't follow the rules of the game mechanics" what is this even supposed to mean? So far you haven't even brought up anything remotely close to an actual argument. My parents taught me a very good lesson as a child, that is "if you can't suggest an improvement or a form of change to the status quo, then you don't have a right to complain about it either". The only thing you have done is tell me that A) it's a stupid idea and B) (B being the reason) because it doesn't follow the game rules?? Honestly, i'm not even sure how to react, what does this even mean lol? It would be great if you could elaborate on what that means. And why can't there be more exclusions?

Nonsensical? It would bring all 3 RFP's in line, all would be unique and balanced.

It would still make Fang the best, while needlessly nerfing 1 fine gun and keeping 1 underpowered gun completely the same.

You can, simply make the guns seperate lol. That isn't very hard to code at all.

As per usual, the majority of the forum community (and to an extent the APB community as a whole) do not understand how to properly nerf, buff or change weapons. The most common nerfs mentioned are more or less. - Making it more inaccurate, I.E hipfire nerf. - Nerfing its range and or changing IR3 to IR1 - Combining various small nerfs, most likely the 2 above, making it totally gimped by death by a thousand cuts. The first problem that people have when saying that the "RFP needs a nerf" is that they don't specify what RFP, the 3 variants are different. They have different stats and utilities. The tierlist for these 3 RFP's is the following. - Talon (silenced RFP) is the worst one, sporting that least effective range, with the only upside being less recoil, barely noticable at that too, it is Underpowered. - Stock RFP, this RFP is the most balanced one, after all the buffs to the RFP this one and the Fang managed to join the now holy trinity of secondaries (which are available to everyone). Namely the FBW, 45. and Stock RFP and Fang. The stock RFP is Balanced. - Fang, the most hated one, this one is arguably Overpowered, as it brings all the advantages of the Stock RFP with barely any trade-off. the Increased Bloom is only noticeable when you fire at max or close to max firerate, which the Stock RFP also struggles with (the bloom becomes to much). IR3 is what brings this gun to its insane levels of performance. The Fang is Overpowered. So firstly people need to start talking about the same gun, most people most likely mean the Fang when they say "RFP". However, it's not a guarantee that everyone knows that. Hence I think we should be clearer with what actual gun we mean. Secondly the 2 most prominent nerfs that people are suggesting are the most faulty ones. Decreasing the Hipfire accuracy is a very dumb idea, as it will increase the amount of RNG involved in RFP hipfire battles. And god knows this game does not need more RNG, the hitreg is already bad enough, and I think that most "professionals (the very good players in the game)" will agree that Bloom and base inaccuracy is a bad design decision, since it leaves RNG as a big enough variable that it is noticeable. Obviously skill and the battle's context is what will decide most battles, however, decreasing base accuracy does only award luck, not skill. It is one of the worst nerfs you can give a gun. Some guns can be inaccurate and get away with it, but that is a discussion for another time. Another thing to know about the hipfire of the RFP is that it is completely blown out of proportions. People make it sound that it is the best thing that has ever graced this green earth, but really a FBW and 45 will outbeat it in most scenarios (hipfire battles that is). For example. Let's say you have 2 equally skilled players, one has a FBW, one has a RFP, no nades, both have clotting agent 3 and they are fighting at full health, both stand behind the same corner. What you will notice is that the FBW user will have to expose himself for a few less milliseconds while poking at the RFP user. Basically when the FBW user peaks and pokes the RFP, the RFP will still fire its last bullet when the fbw is already behind cover. In the amount of time it takes for an RFP user to shot his entire burst at the FBW user, the FBW user can pop him with 2 bullets, inbetween the RFP users bursts. Both the FBW and 45. are better "poking guns" then the RFP (all variants), hence they will always win a somewhat fair fight against an RFP while hipfiring. The second nerf, i.e nerfing its range, is also somewhat dumb, as it's only really applicable for the Fang, since the Talon and Stock RFP has fine range (The Talon will have fine range once my suggestion on how to buff it has been read). and with all the extreme examples of for instance the "9 bursts at 100m" never happens, it's extreme hyperbole and in practice will almost never happen in-game. I understood his point, it was to highlight inbalances with the RFP, however it was a poor form of arguing, as really, that is a problem with minimum damage, rather then range, aswell as the accuracy loss while the burst is going on will mean that you will not likely hit those 9 bursts perfectly. The reason why just "nerfing" the range of the Fang isn't smart is because it would not "fix" the underlining issue with the Fang (I.E High minimum damage, and not a steep enough range decrease). So the correct way of nerfing the Fang is simple, you decrease its firerate as that is what makes it beat out all the other RFP's. It has all the advantages of all the other RFP's without any of the downsides (realistically speaking). Since the Fang is a more (on paper atleast) specialized secondary, I:E long range RFP, why not have it be long range, but the tradeoff is not being super good close range? Exactly, since the Fang is essentially in the class of the RSA's and ACT44's of the game, but with all the bonuses of a close range secondary. So make it Mid-Long range. Nerfing its firerate would seriously decrease its effectiveness in CQC. When the firerate is slow enough to have a ttk over 1 sec, perhaps like 1.25 it will be all fine. This while buffing the Talon, make the talon the Short range variant of the RFP's, faster fireate and slightly increased base accuracy while hipfiring, but with a serious decline in minmum damage and damage falloff. All this while keeping the regular RFP intact.

Depends on the coding. Could be a modifier like 0 - 100 so that 0 is the first bullet, 0.36 is the last. And it could be a per shot modifier. I cannot say for sure, as it is highly out of context I am afraid.

I understand that each are multipliers for a type of recoil for a type of gun in a type of shooter I suppose. Recoil up is upwards, i.e Vertical recoil, and Left and Right are modifiers for how the gun jumps to left and right per shot. I assume this is a type of recoil pattern ish system, such as CS:GO.

Recoil is how much a gun jumps horizontally or vertically, atleast in APB.

Bloom simply makes a gun more inaccurate.