Glubbable

Cause you can totally learn from being 2 shotted nonstop by a csg, getting qs'd nonstop or getting sprayed in the face by a Yukon. Honestly, stop kidding yourself when someone, who's clearly new to the game is being stomped by a dethreater. Especially against someone who is purposely going to use whatever they can to make it as unfair as possible for new players and would also be unwillingly to be friendly to new players.

Pretty sure it wasn't just netcode that made G1 enforce 40/40 districts. Would not be surprised if they managed to degrade the server performance with each and every change they ever implemented.

How you gain or lose threat is purely based on how well you perform in each mission. If you constantly perform better than half the players in the mission, your threat will increase and vice vesa. At least, that is how I remember it being explained to me.

If I remember, Open Conflict was purely introduced to harvest data about matchmaking in order to improve upon it. Which of course, never went anywhere and the district type ended up being dead within a week. So yes, replacing OC with something new is good, but removing FC is bad. FC is a pretty good map type, it was just implemented and managed horribly over the past few years.

Why Battle Royal when we can have 4 slot dump trucks?

Tbh, there is a huge skill gap within gold. The threat system is so poorly setup that even performing, slightly better than the enemy team, (in score), increases your threat. I have no doubt that over half if not more of the current APB pop is around gold threat. And the games in silver districts are usually pub stomps being exchanged to each side. Occasionally you'll get the neck and neck match, but most of the time it's pub stomping.

Here's a serious answer. This is the possible reason, but I could be wrong. It's either, they want to prevent ban evasion or the bypass of regional settings. Like for example, cheaper armas prices for people from Russia due to lower cost of living region. The former is most unlikely due to how easy it is to change your IP address, so it would be pointless to block VPNs. So this is most likely related to something they intend to do with ARMAS.

The salt is prob coming from the fact that 4 slot dump trucks are yet to be confirmed.

I believe Matt wants to avoid a road map for now while they spend their time fixing a lot of the games operational issues. So they don't get anyones hopes up; as right now, the game is still in a terrible state with the unstable servers and client performance.

So basically another district that'll be dead on arrival or a few days after it's release. Anyone remember Open Conflict and how that was going to be used to fix the matchmaking?

How do you think San Paro keeps the streets clean of all the dead bodies?

How exactly would they be able to judge players based on global, anonymous data? Let alone, determine how cheat software gets detected. Or did you misunderstand what I asked?

This question has been brought up in a few posts recently, so I felt the need to ask via a thread. It would be nice to see how effective Battleye or FairFight truely are based on Statistical Data. Such as how many players have been banned, how many have been detected, etc. And considering how Matt wants to absolutely sure that BE is not incorrectly banning players. Sharing certain, specific data with the community would help regain player trust in the long run.

HVRFront

New company, new rules. For some this can be a second chance, or not. Time will tell.

Like your cross hair turning red for a brief second when someone stands behind the corner of a closed door.

I don't think this person even understands how cheat programs function if they believe forcing DRM will solve it.

Rank requirements wouldn't be much of a problem if leveling up didn't take centuries to do. Ontop of that, a lot of role requirements are also extreme. Role 16 for weapon roles requires 10,000 kills, 10 thousand, which is extremely grindy for access to a skin and a different ntec model with 3 slots on it (which is 10 day lease).

I think I'd just be happy with ARMAS prices that don't feel like they're taking my arms, legs and eyes, while also stabbing me for good measure. When the base price of an account bound weapon is $60. You know there's a problem.

It's not just the matchmaking that's extremely broken at times. It's also how threat is determined, which in turn results to this, because of how the matchmaking considers threat levels. Although, this is purely based on what I have experienced over many matches over the past few years. It'll most of the time, consider that 2 Silvers are of equal to 1 Gold. Resulting in most of these matches being 2 Golds vs 2 Silvers & 1 Gold. This is technically fine and wouldn't be an actual big deal, if threat was actually accurate. But the majority of Silvers are either below average, dethreaters or new to the game. So, despite what the matchmaking considers as a possibly balanced match, it becomes far from that in pratice. Not to say there isn't anything wrong with matchmaking. There has been plenty of times where you have been stuck, waiting half an hour for a mission in a full district, despite there being plenty of players available to fight. From either alliance open groups or solo players, but this is never the case at times.

Or, they could just stick with the company they aquired and rebuild the consumers trust? Plus, pretty sure renaming a company would require a lot of legal paper work (Such as transfer of rights, renegotiating contracts, taxes etc.). Ontop of that they might be required to republish games, either because of law or because of policy on platforms owned by other companies. Like Steam, PlayStation, XBox etc. But I am not sure on that, but it's a most likely scenario. Then theres other factors like brand recongition, regardless of reputational status, that you'd be throwing away.

Patience. Also you could've done some quick reading up as this was addressed in the Q&A as well. There's more than just Battle Eye that they have to focus on. The game is incredibly old now and G1 had gotten to the point where they stopped maintaining the game for months on end.

The main issue I've always had with the spawn system, is that most of the spawns will put you out in the middle of the street. Which either results in a long walk to a car spawn or straight infront of a HVRs line of sight. However, I believe the solution to the spawn system would be to implement a new entity into the game that is specifically for mission spawns. From there, the developers can easily adjust and place the spawns to be in locations that would often be favorable but yet, still maintain the same distance restrictions from the objective / players (With line of sight checks maybe?). Such as, being able to spawn in the building next door, or having a spawn that is close to a car spawn.

The ban announcements had resulted in some of the worst toxicity that the game had ever seen. Often resulting in witch hunts from players. While, no one likes cheaters and everyone wants to be assured a fair match. The method G1 used quickly turned into something that either enabled harassers or encouraged certain cheaters to seek fame in the game (by getting banned as many times as possible).