Jump to content
Forum rules

Glubbable

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    179

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Glubbable

  4. Posted

    7 hours ago, MrsHappyPenguin said:

    The way the threat system currently works is it does not count missions you are disconnected from or score below a certain threshold (100 points?). Those missions players choose to leave would end up not counting. Their threat would get inflated overtime due to them playing only missions that are easy wins. If quitting counted against your threat, you could exploit that by dethreating.

    I think you've completely misunderstood what a Team Surrender is.

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    1 hour ago, MrsHappyPenguin said:

    These players will not ask to surrender, they will intentionally waste the other teams time. They'll brag about how easy a win was while fighting new players, then they'll go afk the moment they get experienced opposition. I don't see new players and low threats going afk, it's always max rank, max threat, veteran players.

     

    You want to screw up matching making even more? Allowing players to choose which missions they play is a great way to do that.

     

    How would a mission, that ends early because of a surrender, be something that would screw up the matchmaking even more?

  7. Posted · Edited by Glubbable

    11 hours ago, MrsHappyPenguin said:

    You should be charged in game cash and lose progression for doing so. Do it too many times and your account gets deleted. These people do more harm than good to keep the community active. They purposely throw missions when they get a new player on their team, and constantly spam support with false cheat reports.

     

    If name and shame was allowed I would have a 100 page thread of these players.

    You do not punish your players for problems that arise in your own game, you work on mitigating / fixing the problem.

     

    You can easily limit possible abuse by time gating the vote option or requiring the first stage of a mission to be completed before the vote becomes an option.

    Then you'll have to get the entire team to agree to surrender, which will be not always be the case with randoms and certainly with pre-made groups.

     

    If the vote is implemented correctly, it will become an option that is only used when everyone comes to the conclusion that they have no hope of winning. Which can be caused by multiple factors, from either being out-classed or out-gunned by better players to the mission itself is too heavily one sided.

    • Like 3

  8. Posted

    4 hours ago, MattScott said:

    Hi all,

     

    We found that spamming /cointoss to get kicked was actually negatively affecting the server, so we fixed the exploit.

     

    We are now having a discussion about if or when we should allow players to drop from matches.

     

    This was supposed to be mentioned as part of the patch notes, but we missed it.

     

    I’ll take up the GM issue internally.

     

    Thanks,

    Matt

     

    A Team Surrender Vote would be pretty awesome, there's no point forcing people to sit through 5-10 minutes of being rofl stomped into the floor due to a massive skill gap.

  9. Posted

    On 2/13/2019 at 1:10 AM, Nanometic said:

    I think it sounds like a quirky little event, nothing too crazy to make you want to jump in and "complete" asap but if you so happen to find one mid-match, you're not going to be upset.

     

    Also the 3D glasses lost their rarity the second they got put into the KTTW pack, that boat already sailed sorry to say.

    KTTW was also suppose to be a limited time only pack for those with the $$$ to spend on it.

  14. Posted · Edited by Glubbable

    If you've been playing APB for a long time like me, you'll tend to notice that APB can eat up a sizable amount of your harddrive space with massive log files. These files, that you can find them under "APB Reloaded/APBGame/Logs", can get as large as 300MB depending on how long you play APB for within a single session.

     

    I have recently tried to find anything on how to disable this logging functionality, searching the forums and google have turned up nothing. Ontop of that I have tried a few settings in the configs that hinted to logging, but it resulted in nothing. With that being said I am unsure on where to place this kind of topic, so I am putting it in as a suggestion for a launcher / ingame option.

     

    My main motivation for asking for this option (or to be pointed to which config to change) is that I have a strong suspicion that a lot of my stutter lag occasional comes from the game trying to write to this log file as it gets larger and larger.

    • Like 1

  15. Posted · Edited by Glubbable

    Pretty sure with how slow they've been rolling out BattlEye as the games anti-cheat and how graceful Matt has been over the possibility of false bans. I think calling the company unprofessional is uncalled for, especially when they have admitted to double verifying bans ontop of providing additional support towards those that just got banned just incase.

  16. Posted

    The destroyable shop objectives in the mission bug out and become indestructible unless rammed with a car.

    Also occurs in the mission named as R. O. A. R. so it'll be safe to assume this can happen to all missions that include destroyable shop objectives.

     

     

    Forgive me for potato graphics as APB loves to stutter lag / lock-up on regular settings.

  18. Posted · Edited by Glubbable

    47 minutes ago, Mr. Foster said:

    if i get kicked for Autolt and i dont have it on my pc then id call it false-positive, unless BE can pinpoint what triggers the kick (roccat soft?). 

    Looking up on this mouse provides some information about a macro manager being included. I would not be surprised if they obtained a licensed build of AutoIt, which is what BE is most likely detecting as it's been stated already over what this script language is used for. So it's most likely detecting the mouse software itself if it is running while you're playing.

  19. Posted

    10 hours ago, Kewlin said:

     

    You specifically said that the new tech of cross-instance matchmaking wouldn't solve the current issues with matchmaking, and then went on to describe the current issues, so unless you misspoke I understood perfectly:

     

     

    The new system pretty much inherently solves the problem of people being in the wrong district.

     

    I did not say that it won't solve the problem, what I said was that introducing new tech does not always mean that the problem will be solved. So I put it out there that I would like to see LO address the current issues that plague the matchmaking in some form rather than holding off for a feature that depends on the Engine Upgrade, which is still far away.

  20. Posted

    13 hours ago, Kewlin said:

     

    I'm not sure you understand the concept of how this works. The idea is that it basically doesn't matter what district instance you're in, as it will look at people across ALL of the similar instances (E.G. all Financial mission districts.) As such, there's not an issue with Golds being in "Silver district" (if there even still will be a Silver district) since the Gold's teammates and opposition are being chosen from every similar district. The only time this could be an issue really is with P/N5, but P/N5 is considered to be a fundamentally flawed system by many players to begin with anyways.

    I do understand, I think you misunderstood that I am talking about the current matchmaking system as we are still, so far away from an engine upgrade.

  21. Posted · Edited by Glubbable

    I personally would like to see changes to the current matchmaking rather than hanging everything over the promise of Cross-Server Matchmaking. Introducing new tech does not inherently solve problems that are currently plaguing an existing system, especially when these are problems that are caused by basic mistakes in logic or incorrect values.

     

    Currently as it stands, it is far too easy to obtain Gold Threat as having any ability to play games at an above average level, gets you Gold. On top of that, players in the Gold Threat will flood into the Silver Districts simply because they could which is often unfair to actual Silvers in the districts due to the vast skill gap between legit Golds & Silvers. Resulting in those Silvers that are aware of district switching, to bump down into Bronze and cause skill gaps to appear there.

     

    The first problem can be solved by adjusting the current settings for the threat system. At this point with how dead the game is, it wouldn't hurt trying to make a change.

    The second problem can be tackled by introducing a new system that I would like to call the Dynamic District Threat System that would dynamically change the districts threat based on controlling factors.

     

    Dynamic District Threat System

    Desc: Dynamically changes the threat level based on certain factors and takes actions accordingly when applying the newly assigned threat level.

    Factor 1: Dynamic Threat will enable upon the districts population passing beyond two thirds capacity.

    Factor 2: Dynamic Threat will be changed based on the largest portion of players belonging to a certain threat. But only if that threat is at least twice the size of the second largest threat.

    Action 1: In the event of a districts threat increasing (ie Silver > Gold), all players below the new threat level will be prompted over this change and should be advised to switch district.

    Action 2: Players that are in a threat level that is no longer valid for the district (ie if a District drops in Threat) will no longer be allowed to ready up and will be prompted to self-select for another district.

     

    Just a basic brain storm on something to address the problem with players stacking into lower threat districts by basically discouraging the behavior with a reactionary system rather than hard locking them.

  22. Posted

    Shoving testers under NDA goes against the point of giving any form of transparency. Plus it's pretty common these days for people to just leak stuff... so why not just avoid giving them access to stuff that you don't want them to talk about? Like, this game is only holding on thanks to LO, so the last thing we need is for them to repeat the same mistakes Reloaded did.

  24. Posted

    5 hours ago, Lato said:
    12 hours ago, Glubbable said:

    Maybe if they fixed how the threat system works, dethreating wouldn't be an issue.

    It's an issues in every single multiplayer and it's always going to be, especially the ones that have a small population of mostly veterans
    Other games, at the least have multiple factors that determin how much your matchmaking rating increases or decreases by. In APB it's litterally based on mission score and if you scored higher than half of the players in the mission. No factors being considered like, did this person just stomp the opposite team etc.
×
×
  • Create New...