LilyRain

No, this is not true All OCA Nano variants are based on "OCA Nano". They only differ through having non-accuracy-affecting mods and the weapon's model: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OCA Nano: Base model with no mods. 'Assassin': Base model with Magazine Pull 3 → Faster Reload Times + less Magazine Capacity (accuracy stats not affected) 'Chrome': Base model with Mobility Sling → Faster Marksman Movement Speed + slower Equip Time (Mobility Sling doesn't have a downside coded to negatively affect Marksman Modifier accuracy from the added speed when used, because APB is an incomplete game with minimal logic → accuracy stats not affected) 'Connoisseur': Base model with SMG Silencer → 30% less recoil and 10% less Hard Damage to vehicles (recoil in APB only shakes the weapon, it doesn't expand/contract the accuracy-cone itself → Accuracy stats not affected) 'Connoisseur' [non-silencer version]: Base model with Mobility Sling → Same as 'Chrome' above 'Glow': Base model with Extended Magazine 3 → More Magazine Capacity + Slower Reload Times (accuracy stats not affected) 'Gold': Base model with Tagger mod → Tags opponents on successful hits (accuracy stats not affected) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ » You'll always get the same total effective accuracy per applied conditions with any Nano Variant. » Automatic weapons have macros built within them, they are naturally more prone to going as far as their stats allow them compared to semi autos. » SquirrelFace showed the calculation above that shows why Nano doesn't bloom (more proof down below). --------------------------------------------- You have the mind of a Problem Solver! The +1 strategy works when shifting the position of say, a mathematical-function on a plane in order to compare it with another. Sadly we can't do that in APB because you will change the weapon's stats to represent something that it isn't, ultimately yielding incorrect results. Your nano-accuracy calculation of 44,4 cm at 10 meters is too high (proof down below). e.g: Take the STAR 556 with its of Accuracy Radius at 10m of 18 cm and Per Shot Modifier of 0.6. If you apply the +1 strategy and multiply them directly (because the modifier is less than 1) like you did earlier: 18cm * (0.6+1) = 28.8 cm There is no way STAR's accuracy rises that much from just 1 shot, it just never happens. Likewise, its worst possible accuracy would also have an incorrect value this way. --------------------------------------------- Thing is, Per Shot and Shot Modifier Caps aren't multiplicative like say, the Marksman Modifier. If they were, a weapon like the Raptor with a Per Shot Modifier of 0.1 and a Shot Modifier Cap of 0.4 would become more accurate so long the trigger is held, due to multiplying by a factor that is less than 1. The correct way to calculate is to first multiply Accuracy Radius at 10m with the accuracy modifier(s) that correspond(s) to the state of the Player (crouching, mid air, marksman aiming, walking, etc..) and then ADD the Per Shot/Modifier Cap depending on the state of the weapon. »»» Calculation ««« Therefore, calculating the worst possible accuracies for FBW and Nano when the player is just standing still would be: FBW (15 Shots) » 19 cm + 1.5 = 20.5 @ 10 meters. Nano » 24 cm + 0 (Nano can't gain Per Shot Modifier as SquirrelFace showed) = 24 cm @ 10 meters. Of course, FBW after 6 shots would be more accurate than both » Accuracy Radius at 10m + {[Per Shot Modifier-((Fire Interval - Recovery Delay) * Recovery Per Second))] * Number of Shots} » 19 cm + {[0.2 - ((0.2s - 0.1s)*(1/s))]*6} = 19 cm + 0.6 = 19.6 cm »»» In-game Verification ««« - To verify the results, spawn a car and park it next to a wall and my choice the Vegas 4x4. To maintain position during testing, I used the Field Supplier Character Mod to swap weapons. - As the 4x4 is 2 meters wide, 9 meters from the core of the 4x4 is 10 meters to the wall. - Once done testing with the wall, I placed the images in Microsoft's PowerPoint, inserted a zero-fill-circle shape that fills Nano's accuracy. I then Copied & Pasted the same shape over FBW's results to make sure the circle has the same-size for direct comparison. Note: Bullets don't necessary hit where they land on the wall to mitigate an old-cheat, but they are guaranteed to fall somewhere within the accuracy-circle. It is apparent that FBW sits better within the same circle, indicating that FBW is indeed more accurate than Nano. You may do the same calculations and verifications with Fr0g and Colby .45, you'll find that Fr0g does 20 cm and Colby .45 does 20.35 cm at 10 meters respectively, both of which are still more accurate than Nano when standing still. But were my calculations themselves accurate? Let's find out By parking the Vegas 90° Counter Clockwise with its core above the line between 2 adjacent floor-tiles, I took an image as soon as the distance to the Vegas increased by 1 meter. It can be seen that each tile on the floor equals 1 meter: I used this knowledge to translate the distance from the Vegas's core to its tail onto the wall (this translation is necessary since my original distance to the car is 9 meters & 10 meters to the wall): With this step done, it is now safe to copy & paste the circle from the beginning of the 2.5 meter portion to the end (in red) With 5.3 circles (twice that in circle's radius, ~10.6) representing 2.5 meters in game, we can back-trace to see how accurate I was: Circle's Radius (Nano's Accuracy in cm @ 10 meters) = (Distance in meters/Number of Half-Circles) * (100 cm/1m) = (2.5/10.6)*100 = 23.6 cm This means that the total error of pasting ~5.3 circles as well as estimating distances in-game amounts to a total error of 0.4 cm (error = 1.67%). It hardly ever gets any more accurate than this. Nano's accuracy @ 10 cm is indeed 24 cm, not 44 cm. It is now safe to say that calculating and verifying in this way is the correct & proves that Nano is NOT more accurate than the other, mentioned secondary pistols. Bonus: BUT WAIT, MOST PEOPLE DON'T FIGHT STANDING STILL!! Indeed, however in practice, Nano's other modifiers don't help it better close the gap in accuracy. It has the same exact Run Modifier as FBW's and Fr0g's (1.3). To make things worse, the Fr0g's 'Thumbnail' variant has Reflex Sight 2, which drops its Run Modifier to 1.2 further gaining more accuracy compared to Nano (it also kills faster, 0.8s vs 1s). While Colby .45's run modifier is at 1.5, the gap comes a bit closer but since it was too far ahead with its much better base accuracy, it still doesn't lose in accuracy. With the Run Modifier applied, Nano has an effective accuracy of 31.2 cm that doesn't build up overtime, whereas the rest: - FBW starts at 24.7 cm and builds up to 26.2 cm - Fr0g also starts at 24.7 cm (22.8 cm for Thumbnail) but builds up to 25.7 cm due to having 10 bullets in the mag compared to FBW's 15 (23.7 cm for Thumbnail). - Colby .45 starts at 30.0 cm and builds up to 30.35 cm To make things even worse for Nano, its Marksman Modifier of 0.8 won't help it compete in accuracy. Colby .45 has a modifier of 0.75 (and also kills faster, wonderful). While FBW and Fr0g have modifiers of 0.9, which are more than enough to secure the already established margin (They also kill faster, even if by a small 0.05s). Edit: Nano's Equip Time is also substantially higher.. quite the drawback on a secondary weapon. Fun Fact: Nano's accuracy becomes equal to Colby .45's when both are in mid-air without marksman, but that's as far as Nano can compete in accuracy. --------------------------------------------- CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------- - Whether through calculations, in-game testing or words of non-lying top-tier SweatLords (because some trolls lie), the saying "no reason to use Nano in a competitive setting" is true. - If you are willing to sacrifice BOTH accuracy and time-to-kill just to be more relaxed through less clicking, that's your choice and it is perfectly fine but know that you are playing with more disadvantages. - If you were told by someone that Nano is more accurate than FBW, Fr0g and .45 (which happen to also have better peak performance), you were lied to. Now you can make an informed decision when choosing one of these weapons.

That's good ♥ - You can now see that Colby .45 AP and Fr0g will NEVER reach their Shot Modifier Caps before reloading, not even with macro-level performance. - At this moment, only FBW could ever hit its Shot Modifier Cap (even though in practice, the opponent would be 2.5 times dead by then, but keep this on the side for now). Let us examine your first calculations: .45: 30 cm FBW: 28.5 cm Fr0g: 28.5 cm Nano: 20,4 cm Imagine .45 and Fr0g had enough ammo or for simplicity, let us go with the FBW. A final effective accuracy of 28.5 cm when just shooting (no crouching, no aiming down sights) is quite high. That's right in between Carbine and PMG's initial accuracies, the weapon never reaches this. This is an indication that something is off.. I am waiting for MonkaS' response so I'll reveal the answer a bit later. Can you figure out where the error is in you first attempt? Hint: It isn't a problem of inserting numbers into a calculator, more so on logical application. Explore the stats of other weapons, they'll reveal something interesting.

Your methodology is lacking, too simplistic to be correct - I like how you ignored recoveries for all weapons but the nano's - I also like how you ignored modifiers other than the shot modifier cap

- That's exactly the problem.. You requested a discussion that you keep running away from with every single post. - Again, you're not putting the information in order for it to be discussed. Again, you're not putting the information to engage a discussion... You should know by now why you never partake in meaningful, fruitful discussions. These are plain wrong, I am sorry... You made the mistake of not paying attention and also being ignorant enough to not know the weapons, therefore you think what you are writing is correct.. - O-PGL can kill after 5 seconds from the instant it can be heard, with a max-health-damage blast radius of 200cm (if not, following it up leans on a blast radius of up to 750cm). - On the other hand, OSMAW's windup time is 1.75 seconds & the rocket travels at 47.5 m/s. So in Asylum, it can kill in sub 3 seconds from the instant it can be heard (if not, following it up leans on a STAGGERING blast radius of up to 1000cm). It is very apparent which of the two weapons is easier to get kills with. - Yet again, one reply later you repeat the same mistake of going back and forth after I told you to stop contradicting yourself.. Like... why do you lie so much?! Which is the lie and which is the truth? How do you expect to extract a good discussion with this type of low, misguided ethics? - And again, O-PGL and Spammable are two words that don't mix in the current state of the game. You should instead work on your speed because you seem to be just too slow. - In a standard APB match, you'd be in a team of 4 against another... If you can't keep satisfactory track of ONE teammate that you can see in real-time, how would you keep track of 3 besides your opponents? Perhaps it is time to work on your situational awareness as a Gamer (and more than Gamer in general as 1 person is just too low of a number to be too much for a human). - Fun fact: Teamkills happen in Asylum by all types of weapons, not just O-PGL. Perhaps we should disable all weapons and have Asylum be Blowtorch-only, hmm? Be more rational, please. Dear Lord, again with the "I just don't wanna type it over and over again", because you typed absolutely NOTHING of relevance. AGAIN, because you do not read, having O-PGL function like HoHoHoPGL would get it banned from Mission Districts because the HoHoHoPGL you speak of was buffed prior and would make O-PGL too darn strong. Kindly stop pressing with that idea. Fast forward to the future: Honestly you'd be the first to get annoyed by 4 O-PGL grenades around you in Asylum, because O-PGLers can literally ricochet them off walls. Here is your list of suggestions to "rework" O-PGL which clearly shows keeping Magazine Capacity unchanged at 4 shells without a single additional word: - As this is a "rework" of a weapon, I dare you to highlight anything in there that explains the Change in Ammo Capacity or remotely justifies why you are keeping that at a solid 8 down from 12. What makes that number the perfect choice? What was the methodology or reasoning to determine that and WHY would that be a factor in Asylum that happens to be infested with Vending Machines? What are you changing exactly that has meaning or does anything? This is why I concluded you were trying to hit back at O-PGL, because all you do is exaggerate on your annoyance of dying to a grenade in a PvP game... [inb4 I just don't wanna type it over and over again]. - I also challenge you to properly reply this time and actually say how reducing Ammo Capacity on O-PGL would mitigate the '20 seconds wait at a door' when you can't differentiate between Ammo Capacity and Magazine Capacity. - The best course of action to not ruin something you don't fully understand, is to simply not touch it with a list of "reworks" that you neither have the courage nor ability to justify. - Again, that poll you posted doesn't speak for everyone nor it has a staggering ratio. Drop it already As harsh and trolly the phrase "Git Gud" is generally used, I now know why people keep saying it to you. Your grasp, knowledge and experience are simply not there yet. If you have the time to spam the forums with "I am annoyed", "everyone is annoyed", "I just don't wanna type over and over again", and post complete misinformation due to yourself lacking of what is stated above AFTER being presented with the facts.... Do yourself a favor, actually step back.. revise yourself and understand why the forums exist, quit circle-jerking and git gud. Perhaps then you'd post remotely non-destructive "reworks" that aren't derived from pure annoyance of getting teamkilled in a PvP game.

OCA Nano's bloom does NOT increase, at all. Ping and fps fluctuations affect BOTH weapons.. I'm interested in seeing how you calculated or tested that, because that is simply not true.

Based on MattScott's explanation of Phasing: That would be a no. Phasing in itself is a technique to help better matchmake the community as a whole rather than fetch opponents from the same district. Witnessing a Criminal is already specifically between the Enforcer and the Criminal. Witnessing is NOT a randomly-selected opponent and therefore doesn't fall under the umbrella of matchmaking and phasing.

More like it is quite a frequently raged-on topic. What was the tangible conclusion/proof from all of those topics and 'discussions' that deemed O-PGL unfair? If those complaints didn't "come out of nowhere", you surely can put those on the table as you yourself requested, rather than just avoid it in such manner... You said you were "annoyed by one-word or one-line posts and wanna see a real discussion about it because there's definitely the need of talking about it". Yet there is no tangible discussion here. The thread opener was nothing but a dot ".", and your opener was: - find what I believe in outside this thread - I asked people - I saw people play it well The same can be said about a lot of weapons. Where is the specific discussion/evidence that specifically calls for removing, nerfing or overhauling O-PGL? Except the only difference being the way they travel. You either throw/launch a grenade or send a rocket. Ultimately explosives are defined by the end-result, that is an explosion that deals health and hard damage over radii defined by stats. You said it yourself, O-PGL's blast radius isn't as good as EOL's. More so taking an extra mile to say "doesnt allow anything tbh". That is an indirect-confession that O-PGL is not a problem. You imply that you are okay with Rocket Launchers as they are, which is highly-interesting because OSMAW can also kill in 1 explosion just the O-PGL and can deliver that kill substantially faster.. Quite the contradiction there... Again, you are overstressing on your annoyance and calling teammates stupid because they're not playing the game the way YOU want it to be played, quite unhealthy. Perhaps THEY want to O-PGL, why should YOUR preference be pushed forward when you are presenting zero-evidence of O-PGL being unfair? Or better yet a workable new state? I say this because you're telling me you can deal with people cooking grenades, but you can't deal with friendly-O-PGLs that you are always aware of their exact position and distance in meters, via their names that appear above their heads THROUGH walls... That's incredibly hard to believe.. More interestingly, you imply that you want gameplay to be faster because your current play-solution is to just wait it out.. On its own this implies wanting a fuse-timer buff. I already asked if you were sure that you wanted an O-PGL buff and that is yet to be answered. Your plan in this very thread states nerfing "ammo capacity from from 4 (12) to 4 (8)".. You clearly proposed keeping the magazine capacity at 4 grenades which according to you leads to 20 seconds of bottleneck waiting at a door. Why is that a problem now on the second page? It is evident through your posts, "annoying" and "stupid" that your goal is to take hit back at O-PGLers for some self-relief. You didn't really think something so simple through. You don't have to get it right 100% by the 2nd-decimal-point but you should at least be able to tell something. Those who can provide numbers and stat-suggestions will have the highest chances of being heard (which is still not very high knowing how things work here). The best you can ever get without having the courage to deal with numbers is a random public playtest. We had many of those before and they were always a mess. Please, no more. This is beyond agreeing and disagreeing on 1 particular thing. The big picture says that there are more than 1 state of weapon balance that CAN be consistent throughout. A "balance" has 2 arms. Nerfing O-PGL just for the sake of nerfing it without doing anything else makes things less consistent than what they currently are, especially when you don't even know where you want the weapon to be nor the general place of weapons in APB as a whole.

Yes, I've seen that thread & it brings attention to the importance of qualitatively-quantifying numbers in polls than just take them at face-value like Presidential Elections. 60 to 42 when most votes are based on pure-annoyance isn't a great nor alarming ratio. If you want to make some serious change, go back to the root of the problem: Explosives in APB. O-PGL is simply a grenade-launcher, the annoyance around it is not so different from grenades themselves, which also receive quite some hate both in and out of FightClub as well. Grenades also factually happen to be more practical, dangerous and annoying than O-PGL & already received nerfs prior to this thread. If you'd like to edit O-PGL, you must also edit all explosives in the game (good thing health and hard damages are separate so no immediate need to revisit vehicle balancing). Keep in mind that the general time-to-kill in this game is relatively high for a shooter-game, which is the very reason why corner-camping is much easier to do in APB compared to other games and guarantees kills 9/10 of the time (it is even easier now with the questionable x2 heal rate medspray received). Explosives are usually what cleans those cowardly Corner Campers. Nerf Explosives without compensating and you'll make their lives once again even easier. I'm sure people will dislike this fact if such thing happens and it becomes the new reality. You'll dream of going back & threads to roll back will again surface but this time including explosives. Properly editing explosives requires base weapons to settle in first, which are still being modified up & down to this date, else you'd only be looking at a cheap-fix that will last so long players would lose hope (we had many of those and we don't need more, e.g HVR's damage dependence on reticle bloom [♪♫ßΣ this with passion], questionable consumables, etc..) The latest attempt which is still open is made by SPCT @Frosi here: ↑ with this, I'm not ending the discussion. I'd like to see more of it but I posted that thread just in case if you believe you have a sufficient plan or an idea of where O-PGL should be in APB, you get to catch up by voting your stat-adjustments on Frosi's sheet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now addressing your intention of wanting to "see a real discussion" about this topic, truth be told, knowing the problem is 80% of the solution. With sentences like: "Still think theres something wrong with this weapon that could be made better to make it a little less annoying" "It's just annoying af getting stalled or stupidly killed because of said reasons" I'd like to know what lies beyond "annoying" exists to the point where O-PGL & grenades are not fair in the current state of balance in APB? Because "annoying" alone isn't sufficient to produce satisfactory results. We have already seen what happens to gameplay when balancing happens just to accommodate for annoyance, nothing but less options and even more repetitive gameplay where only few things ever work in a serious match. Weapon Balancing aims to deliver FAIRNESS. If you can prove that O-PGL or explosives are not fair then it is only natural for a substantial, focused-change to be warranted without overhauling everything. "Annoying" and "stupid" are not enough.

Again with the "you don't play Asylum" and scenarios that only happen to those who are yet to learn the most basic fundamentals of this game... I played enough Asylum to do things like this: Now, why wasn't an O-PGLer MVP or teamkilled me enough to prevent me from being MVP myself, with literally the WEAKEST setup in the game against the crowded Asylum? Real people show real examples and results, my friend.. And you dare talk low of APBDB, the website that is literally managed by LO & SPCT-member "Speed" to deliver actual game stats that you won't find reliably anywhere else? That already tells enough.. Perhaps it is time for you to start learning how the game and this place works to better contribute towards APB's future, rather than 'omg, please remove O-PGL from Asylum because we had a 4v2 game and O-PGLer got mad and teamkilled us'.... Grow up, would you? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Just another rage-driven pls remove/nerf thread, add it to the pile.

Speak for yourself Speak for yourself Nonsense.. players push over the O-PGL grenade that was shot to the floor and attack the O-PGL User before it even explodes... again, it needs 5 full seconds to explode, which is longer than attacking someone who's cooking their grenade. Not sure where you're bringing all that false, hypothetical talk from. 3 keywords: O-PGL, distance, spam I am sorry, but these 3 simply don't mix.... But O-PGL is a grenade launcher, what are you even on about? The meaningful radius is the max damage radius, which happens to be the smallest of all grenades, right at 200cm.... Concussions have wider radius AND detonate faster.. I highly recommend making use of APBDB to further familiarize yourself to give meaningful suggestions. Spewing false information, scenarios that don't even happen and obscene-language that doesn't belong in this forum to seek nerfs out of pure-PvP-rage will never serve you any good nor to the game. Better luck with your future posts, I hope to see more quality in them.

A test-environment like that would be very nice to have indeed. The best thing we currently have is a built-in calculator on APBDB: https://apbdb.com/build/Weapon_LMG_SHAW556_Slot3_Armas/?mods=FnMod_Weapon_MicroRockets Of course, you already know that Micro Rockets on Shaw won't do anything (you said it as an example) so there are no effects to SHAW's stats in the link. Knowing how the game is currently and how to calculate things from such links (e.g effective initial accuracy, current bloom after X many shots, etc...) is the definitive way to arrive at conclusions that you can trust without a playtest. Not that playtests are bad, quite the opposite. It is just that playtests require time to setup. Long-story made a bit shorter, playtests without a reasonable direction and remotely fair numbers on paper are simply a time-sink, because many tests on the same thing must happen in order to reach a new good state (trial and error). These happened even on Live Servers in dedicated Districts A and B. Changes were either too much, too little or on a stat that was completely meaningless on said weapon. There was no end-vision nor direction at all + minimal to no compensation on adjacent stats on the same & other weapons around it (like when LO nerfed the equip time on the SNR Snubnose from 0.1 to 0.5s, they buffed its damage to compensate on a later patch, not the same one....).

The wind-up mechanic was introduced and got added to some devastating-weapons in order to make their devastation less prompt (a cheap fix but it is what they went with) - OSMAW can one-shot just like O-PGL, but its max damage radius is higher and the rocket's travel speed is 47.5m/s (206.5% as fast as the fastest car in the game). The windup mechanic prevents it from being abused as much as it was years ago. It was truly a FEARSOME primary weapon (and those days were also more fun). - Nfas True-Ogre... without the windup, it would kill in 0.4 seconds, making it the King of CQC. - The EOL series: You have the Deep Impact, Kickback and The Hammer, they have fuse timers of 2.5s, 2s and 1.5s respectively (substantially faster than your average grenade fuse-timer of 4 seconds). These weapons having a wind-up time kinda makes things even [their only problem is having a super-strict magazine capacity, exception being the Deep Impact. Deep Impact can't kill without reloading or using a secondary/grenade]. I personally think having too many wind-up timers aren't healthy for the game, but if you're going in that route, the 5-seconds fuse-timer on the O-PGL must go down or you'd just be committing the same mistake LO did. That mistake being changing 1 variable in a game where weapons have an entire page of stats to change and expecting that to be sufficient.

2 meter effective max damage range is already way behind Concussion grenades. Low Yields and percussions do exactly 2m after they got their range nerfed. 1 meter max explosion range after a 5 second warning will simply kill the weapon. If you're going with this then the fuse-timer on the O-PGL must be decreased to compensate. O-PGL has a Fire Interval of 1.750 seconds (1.628 with cooling jacket 3), a difference of 0.122s on a substantially high time makes it spammy? Please elaborate. Say that towards things like the recently rebuffed-OCA. SHAW, ALIG and HVR movements vary way beyond just movement speeds. they're not exactly the same. While the sprint speed of O-PGL isn't isn't as slow as SHAW/ALIG, it compensates through having a sprint delay, the same delay HVR has. Interestingly enough, HoHoHo-PGL DOESN'T have the sprint-delay O-PGL has... HoHoHo-PGL was buffed a while ago for xmas and for that very reason LO didn't allow it to be used in Mission Districts. Are you REALLY sure you want O-PGL to not have the sprint-delay or even function as HoHoHo-PGL? Because you'd be doing the opposite of what you are trying to do... you would've ended up buffing O-PGL. Having 26% less sprint speed at that point won't matter, especially in Asylum where the user can just resupply it and shoot next to a Vending Machine.

- Blitzkrieg 4 gives a score of 2,150, how do you not get MVP after such an insanely massive boost in score..? - Yeah, tracking for 0.585 seconds only. (without any cooling jacket even). If you can't do that then you can't track with anything in APB as other weapons require substantially more tracking time. - Meanwhile, O-PGL grenades require 5 full seconds to detonate. - Mindfulness goes both ways and extend to much more than just O-PGL (everyone carries 2 grenades on average you know). Rather than calling idiot this lmao ignorant idiot that, perhaps be the smart one and refrain from escorting O-PGLers down every single hallway of Asylum?

You'd then give up reliability (accuracy). Nano WITH marksmanning is still less accurate than FBW

Speaking of MVP in Asylum, wait till someone crouches with AMG-556 'Euryale', and shoots to obtain Blitzkrieg 4... MVP guaranteed on the spot, can just auto-pilot till the match ends. Being MVP in Asylum isn't sufficient to make such a change, but I'd vouch for removing that Joker Vending Machine right outside that Kitchen room

It is still open, my dear~

You would cheat in a game that you love? Don't let your frustration cloud your judgement

I can work with that, lol Pretty polished page, that's a job well done

Unless there is an end-vision of how APB should play as a game, Weapon Balancing will always be aimless with no definitive right/wrong answers as changing one thing also affects things that weren't even touched. - Hey, meta weapons are too powerful, nerf them down to fall in line with other weapons in the game. - Nah nah my boii, don't be like that. Meta weapons are at a good place. Buff the underperforming weapons instead. - Ayyyy, some weapons right here are my ancient religious relics! Don't touch their 'identity' that was a thing since they were meant to be Pay2Advantage from Joker Boxes.. don't touch their niche and no other weapon should even be a rice-grain closer to them. I don't care if the game dies because of this, just don't touch my religious artifacts. Find another way (if you can). - I have no plans to improve as a player so let my RNG-aspect stay. - I like Mickey Mouse and Disney so I want APB to be 10% realistic max, more nonsensical-shiz. - Why are we half-Supermen with Clotting Agent 3? Some punishment is in order for running around in the open like that, APB is too darn tanky... NO, Phok U!! APB must stay like this as dying out in the open is no fun (???) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There will always be variance and inconsistency in balancing as a whole since there is no clear defined goal.. We will continue to have weapons that melt (OCA, gg), weapons that work mediocrely everywhere and meme-weapons that work once in a blue-moon.. (which obviously didn't work and will never work) The closest thing we got to that definition is the phrase "our established baseline" as seen here: 1 » Where exactly is this "baseline"? Is it safe to assume it being around the currently buffed-OCA? Or is it around the previous, signature ttk value of 0.7s? 2 » How thicc is this baseline? Meaning what must the variance/gap in weapons be like? Are we looking at ~0.1 ttk difference between every 2 adjacent weapons? Perhaps 0.05s like a more proper shooter? Should the gaps become smaller to emphasize more on player-performance? Or must it remain large so we continue to have a Rock-Paper-Scissors game? (As of now, it seems to be the latter but this can change) 3 » Do you want APB to be less tanky, more tanky or remain the same in general? (I firmly believe APB is just a BIT too tanky to appeal to people outside the current population as a lot of people go what the ♣♦♠♥ when 85ing someone is not enough. Even famous APB players and Streamers are often too famous for this & it happens too frequently even though they know weapon-stats by heart). 4 » Do you want less bloom and more recoil for more interactivity, or do you want to do half the work while watching the game play the other half for you? (as of now, it is the latter) 5 » Are Consumables going to be overhauled? Or will they continue to have this strong-potent arcadey presence that is powerful enough to be considered in any balancing attempt? (As of now, the latest medspray x2 healing buff suggests they'll be too potent but this can change [and I hope it does, it was just too far from adequate, sorry]) 6 » A lot of Players on this Earth are fond of sniping yet HVR's bloom-damage reliance is yet to be revisited (which will be a problem since APB 2.1 is currently set to market immediately upon launch as seen on the Roadmap Post by MattScott). HVR isn't some futuristic charge-laser rifle you know.. Would you revert HVR completely till further notice? Would you tone its damage down a bit? Time to make a move, this is taking too long for its own good (and no, this doesn't need the new engine). 7 » What about Rev-timers on Rocket-Launchers and things like the nfas-True Ogre? Do you think they are too long, fine as is or too short? Perhaps they shouldn't exist at all & the weapons need to be adjusted accordingly for more fluid gameplay? 8 » Should car-gameplay be tweaked at all? Perhaps 25% damage from leaving a car at max speed? Perhaps less/more tanky cars in general? Perhaps smaller/bigger explosion radius? Perhaps slower repair times? Should car mods be tweaked as well? etc. 9 » Should weapon equip times make more sense depending on weapon-size? Or should they stay as a sub-layer of cheap balancing? And more.. I'd like to see some official statement from LO as this "established baseline" is still a secret to this day.

Approved because #LTLMasterRace Amen

Very true Now that I think about it, having this mod on hard-damage guns would be something as the downside only nerfs health-damage due to APB's logic...

Indeed. Those who got banned earned their bans one way or another.