LilyRain

But LTL was never touched 4 years ago? You can't even troll right. You don't belong in the forums.

I'd like to see you quote that, if you can.

This game doesn't need any more Pay4Advantage, things like the RFP-Fang back in the day did enough damage in that regard, even without being close to the peak of 'different functionality'. And no, even with ARMAS-weapons being available in the Joker Store in exchange for Joker Tickets, it would still drive New Players away because farming Joker Tickets takes time. So this will be another reason for Newcomers to not bother with the game. ARMAS should become cosmetic-only if APB ever wishes to have a shot in the gaming market.

Very interesting coming from the person who wanted LTL nerfed. Meme of the century.

If LO wishes to keep the current, epicly generous cooldown of 45 seconds, then: Make Medspray spawn an actual hand-held item (like blowtorch). Doing this makes Medspray a self-healing blowtorch with the following gameplay-requirements: 1 - Must hold down left-mouse button to heal (as if injecting one's self with a syringe), effectively not allowing the user to fight when healing but also not forcing them to stay still during it (yay, no sitting-2-heal objective-like animation required). 2 - Must know when is the best time to stop healing and start re-equipping a weapon, because weapon re-equip times can easily mean death. Ultimately, medspray will become something meaningful to use when fighting enemies that are about... 4.5+ seconds apart? But it won't work as good in a 1v1 scenario. [And yes, the x2 heal rate should go down. Perhaps to x1.25, else people will just keep self-healing till they find a good opportunity to attack, which would be super lame] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Otherwise, completely revert the x2 heal-rate buff or better even just remove the consumable from the game.

After for sure and you are perfectly in the right, it indeed was a Band-Aid fix at the time (like most fixes in APB). By default, games that segregate threats or attempt to classify players will have smaller total population in general, especially when such classifications are made too obvious & the community makes it the prime center of focus. Indeed, that's the recipe they went for because they didn't properly assess the downsides and underestimated the potential damage to the population. That decline would've been less sharp if instead 50v50 Districts remained rather than the current 40v40 + threat-segregation. Friends and Clans wouldn't have been forced to be separated as much and more importantly, matchmaking would've had more people in the pool to work with per district, so more chances to see different faces after pressing 'K' and the need for phasing at the present moment wouldn't be as high as it is right now. This should indeed be looked into for a better than just a Band-Aid fix if population starts booming again (ideally sooner). While Phasing should help with the matchmaking aspect and appeal to two-parties, the first being those who think 40v40 is the perfect size and the second being those with old computers. A strong player won't easily be a companion to a Newcomer-friend who is yet to learn the ropes & ends up with a low-threat when playing solo & trying to progress (of course, Clans will naturally be affected as well). While Players must be somewhat competitive in APB to win matches, this degree of separation was never needed as threat in APB is meaningless & currently doesn't impact any kind of seasonal ranking rewards like in other PvP games. If there is something APB is yet to get over and beyond to improve in the market of games, it is leaving Band-Aid fixes (especially Weapon Balancing). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The only issue is that Jericho's current population may dip further (and so will EU's) if threat-segregation is removed again because that alone is not enough. A proper-reversal should be scheduled WITH the Global Merge with the new Engine. It can neither be before nor after, has to be released with it to be most effective & is the current major point of concern. Because according to the latest roadmap post by MattScott (that clearly states APB will be pushed for a round of marketing BEFORE enhancing New Player Experience, weapon Balancing, etc..), we already know things are set in stone for this to not happen in the best way it can happen at, if it happens at all.

That would be interesting Problem is that anyone can join an instance that ignores threat. So it makes lives easier for Dethreaters. Dethreaters will go there with 0% risk of getting themselves reported as dethreaters in the main-districts.

Yes, these things contributed in lowering the population, over a long period of time. But the patch that specifically removed threat-segregation on a temporary basis dropped player counts significantly in a short amount of time. I personally enjoyed that period where I got to have a go at dethreaters, knowing they had no place to run away to... no Bronze-district to feast on Newbies in without getting what they deserve. As much as I'll enjoy that again, removing threat-segregation is still bad for the game.

It is indeed much better. Threat Segregation was removed before & the population dropped worldwide, the numbers speak for themselves.

That's... not how factions work.. You don't just have a wolf and a hen in a faction... then another faction also having a wolf and a hen. Easily one of the most flawed and lackluster arguments I have ever seen.

Despite the non-fruitful, daft Weapon Balancing. APB is the only PvP game I know of that lets me login and actually arrest my opponents with good looking characters.

That I could not have said better

Yes, the Curves System affected damage drop off over range, this is why weapons do much less damage and feel kinda useless pretty short just outside their total Drop Off Range. N-tec also received a damage nerf to kill the viability of Heavy Barrel on it. It also acts the same in marksman. Bloom peaks on the 6th shot. But you were right, I searched and found that the Curves System also has an accuracy aspect to it. The information I found does indeed match with the bloom-feel of the weapon. According to the graph, the Curves System makes N-tec a bit more accurate on the first half of a 6-shot burst, up to the 3rd shot and balances out by the 4th. The 5th and 6th shots bloom a bit more: This matches with what can be experienced in-game. Any burst longer than 4-shots without allowing the weapon to rest has high chances of getting bullets to miss. Yes, we should expect ~20-30% more accuracy radius (emphasizing less accuracy over range) on the higher-end of bursts when making any calculation. Excellent mention

You're welcome! This length is fine for me as I used to write tens of pages of Research Yes, this is exactly it. Excellent work! Yeah, stats suggests the same behavior in bloom increase till the cap happens a the 6th shot (without marksman, Improved Rifling or Cooling Jacket): I went in and did a slow-mo vid to confirm: https://streamable.com/k62du7 There doesn't seem to be any artificial phenomenon around N-tec's bloom (perhaps it got rolled back?). The stats are working fine but what you are sensing as a player isn't wrong either. N-tec indeed had its Shot Modifier Cap and Recovery altered before, numerous times by huge amounts. Additionally, the crosshair is set to show the radius at 10 meters regardless of the weapon being used. With a weapon like the N-tec that works up to 50 meters stock, if the player keeps an opponent that happens to be WAY further than 10 meters (usually the case) within the crosshair, the crosshair is visually deceiving the Player into thinking the likelihood of hitting mid-spray is 100%, which is far from the truth: Numbers would be much smaller if marksman and Hunting Sight 3 are considered, but both of these things will naturally disorient people as spraying with N-tec is much less accurate compared to what it used to be. Even in LO's reign on March 7th, 2020, The N-tec's Shot Modifier Cap was raised from 1.6 to 2.4 (overtime, they moved it back to 2.1). But regardless, this change is no joke as the difference really appears when slightly over-spraying the N-tec on ranges much higher than just 10 meters. Your brain knew something was off, lul. That alone is good enough You did much more than that, brought attention to important points for the greater good! Much appreciated This is one reason why the forums exist, to pursue answers on a common platform and you were a part of that! Feel happy, determined and rest easy as you did something positive towards the current & future community members

That's a good base & smart approach, makes things a bit faster indeed I'm glad you mentioned this! The formula indeed shows the total gain in bloom as the weapon continues to fire. The resulting number entails the effective accuracy AT THE INSTANT RIGHT BEFORE THE NEXT SHOT, so as you say, the User must be conscious whether max bloom was actually reached or take another step to determine how far stats permit the weapon to bloom (which you have calculated flawlessly). Fortunately, these secondaries recover fast enough before that happens (FBW barely gets away with it as it hits the limit on the 15th shot) so I didn't do that but It can easily happen on weapons like the STAR 556 and N-tec. Below are 2 Excel Graphs I made for Colby .45 (without marksman or any other modifier) to show the difference between just using the formula and knowing how bloom is gained and lost in practice: The blue dots are the values you'll get from using the formula. This is the same plot, but further shows what physically happens to bloom in real-time. Timer starts when the first shot is released (this adds Per Shot modifier of 0.5cm after the bullet is released). So the entire ramp (/ - \) of the first shot ends when the second shot begins and the net-gain in Per Shot Modifier (after losing some from recovery) will affect the 2nd shot, and so on. Of course, Colby .45 will never hit 21.5cm with only 7 shots in the Magazine. The Highest Accuracy Radius in yellow shows that the reticle goes as far as 20.8, but that is only the gain after firing the 7th shot without recovery. In the real world, it has no practical meaning. You'll get this value from using the formula on 6 shots then just adding a Per Shot Modifier (+0.5). Doing the same figure on say the N-tec would have the ramp ascend more rapidly (like tilting a bridge upwards for a Ferry Ship to pass) and will reach its max bloom way before even half of its magazine gone. Using the formula blindly on the N-tec will overestimate the max bloom value & thus be incorrect. Like you showed yourself, Colby .45 doesn't reach max bloom so for this thread, it is safe to just use the formula as is without worrying about this but it was good of you to mention this. Looks perfect - Colby .45's Fire Interval is 0.20s, not 0.16s. - Doing the calculation with 0.16s and 4 bullets gives me a value of 15.68 cm. My steps were like this (start at the center of the equation prioritizing brackets then work outwards): 1: (0.16s - 0.05s)*3 = 0.33 2: 0.5 - 0.33 = 0.17 3: 0.17 * 4 = 0.68 (with this, all brackets are done) Finally, add this to the 15 = 15.68 cm (this doesn't represent .45 as the Fire Interval is different, just showing steps with your numbers) But nothing to worry about. You'll only get different numbers but if you have followed suit throughout, your ultimate conclusion should stay the same! With marksman, 0.2s for the Fire Interval and 5 shots, I get a value of 15.25cm (this value should be the accuracy for the 6th shot in case the user misses 1 out of the required 5 shots to kill) That's the most permissible upper-bound by sheer stats, yes. Perfect Perfect (regardless if the weapon has enough bullets to reach it) Yes, the walking and marksman modifiers are multiplicative, so their effects will stack on each other. Adding to that the additional accuracy radius from bloom should indeed give the same total effective result I also indeed get 19.5cm, perfect Yep, 18.6cm is correct (regardless if the weapon can reach it) I got 19.6cm because that was a 6 FBW shots outside of marksman aim. All my calculations above were comparisons without marksman to give Nano a chance (by now, you know that Colby's .45 with its lovely marksman modifier of 0.75 when standing still would be a no-contest). Yes, you seem to have multiplied by 5 before having 0.2 be subtracted by the result of ((0.2s - 0.1s)*(1/s)). Doing that will give -0.3 that will pull 17.1 down. Normally multiplication gets priority over addition/subtraction, that's why 5 is outside the brackets to give it less priority and make the calculation true. FBW has nice numbers that the result of the entire bracket in the center is 0.1 (in other words, FBW gains bloom radius of 0.1cm with each shot, perfectly reaching its max bloom with the last shot). So the whole thing would look like the following after simplification: @10M 19cm x .9 = 17.1 + 0.1*5, giving 17.6cm Yes, these are all perfect! Perfection I'm glad we both reached the same conclusion! You approached this really well. Most remarkable! Well done~~

Nice try.. - Weapons that are only accessible in events still exist on APBDB (e.g information on STAR 556 'Love-Gun' will be available after Valentine's is over). If such a Nano does exist, please do specify its special name as nothing in there under secondary nor event weapons shows a resemblance to Nano (e.g ALIG has a mockup called CASE, from which we derive things such as CASE 'The BoLo'. This weapon can be found under Primary Weapons, Light-Machine Guns when the name is not clear). Do that then we can see the weapon more closely (for whatever that will change), because: Fun fact #1: Even if a Nano with Improved Rifling 3 exists, it still won't gain bloom per shot as Improved Rifling doesn't even affect rate of fire. Fun fact #2: Even if a Nano with Cooling Jacket 3 existed (7% faster fire rate → Fire Interval of 0.15s becomes 0.1395), Nano STILL won't gain bloom per shot. The weapon literally has 0.000s Recovery Delay and recovers 6.0cm per second... Good luck trying to increase that with only 0.2cm per shot modifier.. You'll need a Nano that shoots 30 shots per second to just balance its recovery. Please do let me know when Cooling Jacket 90 becomes a thing. Fun fact #2 part 2: The description of "Substantially worsens minimum accuracy" that pertains to cooling Jacket (multiplier of 1.4 in Cooling Jacket 3's case), is outdated. The multiplier now affects max bloom just like Improved Rifling (both mod-effects have type 65). Since it was established that Nano can't gain bloom per shot, it won't end up having a higher max bloom. - Weapons that are only accessible in events have no meaningful appearance in such advisory discussions (e.g that beam-accurate Laser STAR). - Please affirm your stance as a less-accurate Nano won't invalidate what I showed nor drives your point of view forward, it actually supports my stance. What is the goal behind resting on a Nano that is less-accurate than the AVAILABLE Variants that you were trying to recommend and fell short? ------------------- "congrats you wasted your time you didn't" even say something that is remotely functional.

Interesting words but I won't trust that coming from the person who said "Depends on the oca nano variant I assure you there is bloom when the gun is fired." But then again, like I said, your choice is your choice. Enjoy your Nano-memes monkaS Response to MonkaS' edit: The resolution is 1920x1080

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.