Haganu

I wouldn't mind if this was possible, and for the people that like car windows as they are, with that the devs could make a mod for cars that fortifies car windows.

There's already a system in place like this. It just doesn't work because people tamper with threat levels too much. That's not the problem though, the problem is that gold threat is way too easily attained. Poor threat level distribution is constantly distributing threats too high for a lot of players. This causes people that get threat too high for the skill level they feel they should be getting to tamper with it deliberately. In result all the systems together, including the system that is supposed slowly lock you into a threat level the more you play is only causing lopsided matchups and distribution of threat levels, which in turn cause even more disturbance. APB's reputation also really doesn't help in this issue since a lot of dethreating players often accuse silver district to be full of cheaters (I wanted to call this a thing for new players, but since old G1 consistently did nothing for 5 years in a row I won't, not at this point). In all honesty, it's been at least 4 years with this mess that people like to call matchmaking. It feels like something incredible has to happen if LO wants to keep people from constantly tampering with threat levels and threat volatility. I also think the overly extensive competitive mindset people have in the game plays part in why this game is such a mess, especially in this field.

There are about 10 threat levels underlying each threat color. It is however way too easy to fluctuate in threat level. Threat volatility is supposed to make you slowly more or less lock into a threat level when playing consistently, but that's what dethreaters don't do so it's not nearly effective enough.

You missed the point by a couple miles. Try again.

a peculiar fluctuation but alas

That wasn't an issue for open conflict.

Cheers to the people selected for the program! I hope there are interesting new things for you to test. Most of these people make sense going by what they've shown since APB went under LO, so for each of them it's well deserved.

Even without the abuse people are not magically going to spend money on the game now. Honestly, APB needs to change drastically if people want it to turn profit again. Unreal 3.5 isn't going to be that drastic change.

During the time Jobs was producer he already stated G1 was pulling money from tertiary parties to just keep the game running. If I remember his posts correctly. The old forums are still up and his account is still there. He has only posted about 90 times on the forums during his time as producer, which is probably more than any producer of APB has ever done in the short timespan he was producer, it's still a really small amount of posts so it should be there. APB hasn't been profitable for a long time. I'm sure keeping these ARMAS prices won't help either even when new content gets released in Unreal 3.5.

meme arrows on a forum haha why isnt the text automatically turning green

Totally down to join this.

if it would ever be there, rename them to vegas 4x4 district rename financial to ntec district and waterfront to hvr district

There are so many things about this game that make me not want to have a racing district. Car balance is off the charts. Just get in your rocket powered 4x4s and lift off like a dragster. Less top speed is a small issue when you have this much acceleration. Input lag is atrocious in this game when driving. Definitely not made for racing. I pray unreal 3.5 fixes this. And then there's the community. Even if the 2 issues above are completely addressed, you can't fix bumper car drivers. No thanks.

It's not really as if I have any issues with a GM personally, but with the way things are going people seem quite displeased. I don't know how everything goes behind the scenes, but based on what I keep seeing here is that volunteer GMs have to make a support ticket when dealing with situations that GMs basically exist for. Wouldn't it already potentially be a hundred times faster if volunteer GMs instead would directly message GMs? Preferably through a direct chat. I also think that kicking from the server and banning up to 24 hours should be allowed for volunteer GMs. If they've been screened and trained by Lixil it shouldn't be going wrong, right?

I wonder if LO actually does proper screening on people that become GMs or have anyone monitoring their actions. LO is a small company for as far as I know, so I doubt they managed to cover everything. Instead of having volunteer GMs with no power, have properly screened volunteer GMs with some sort of authority. Can also not do anything about an issue like this olde G1 style. There can't be any people breaking the rules or cheating when there are no people playing, right?

Let's put the servers in the ocean or wait for elon-chan to launch all his satellites, maybe he can launch APB's servers into a little orbit

Oh, interesting read. I did not remember anything about such being official at all. Thanks. Certainly Fairfight wouldn't have started off so strong without that stealth mode. Another thing to throw up: Fairfight should be turned up 2-3 notches. One thing I do agree with in Frosi's posts is that turning it down to prevent false-positives (that eventually happened anyways) is a thing that happened. I think it's a bad idea and I feel like anyone lobbying to turn down an anticheat is only contributing to the cheater culture APB suffers from, whether they'd actually be cheating or not. If people really are that afraid of false-positives, there are plenty of ways to work around it. Fail-safes like a strike system really won't be harmful, especially if you have 2 anticheats running.

When it was first introduced. Yes, the giant banwave nobody expected because Fairfight's implementation wasn't announced at the time. There were also rumours that Fairfight has been running in the background for a while before the giant ban wave that marked the start of its lifespan in APB, which I have mixed feelings about. It sounds like community-made nonsense, but then again Fairfight performed pretty poorly overall. To take fact over reason, whatever reason may be, initially Fairfight worked great. That ban wave it started off with surprised nearly everyone. Also fact is that it wasn't enough to stop cheating, and that ban broadcasts, ffbans, and obviously flawed ban policies ruined the anticheat's effectivity for a good share. For a good share, but not entirely. Not nearly close to entirely. The other anticheat was Punkbuster. Let's not compare a server-sided anticheat that tracks and compares against averages with an outdated client-side anticheat.

That's why speedhackers ran free for weeks if not months in Citadel's fight clubs under Fairfight way before LO took over. Sadly I seem to be amongst the few that actually remembers that under Fairfight APB was a shitshow. Fairfight couldn't catch a blatant within a week, let alone a closet. Some closet cheaters ran around for months if not straight up years before the oh so well known ban broadcast would drop, which ofcourse would warrant lots of reactions and shitposts on ffbans.org since long term suspicious behaviour makes people infamous in this risible community. Fairfight alone was absolutely horrible. Fairfight was flawed partly (cautiously saying partly, while it could aswell be mainly) due to the unprofessional policy against cheaters pre-LO. This could be why closets could run around for months, but I'd find that a very poor explaination as to why blatants could run around for weeks.

TESTING SOME TUTORIAL TEXT TESTING SOME TUTORIAL TEXT

A very welcome update that feels properly explained. 40 external libraries sounds like quite something, but it's probably safe to assume other (larger) games run more. If not I wonder how much of a performance impact it has. Eitherway, thanks a lot!

I take it Fight Club does not affect threat volatility in any way? I don't play action districts a lot.

they're called native americans

You're one person, you're not the whole picture. If there are significantly more people with that view on things I'll have to see for myself before I start believing. Glad that this subject hasn't gone unanswered though. Silence on a subject like this would only segregate the playerbase more. Kind of a pity but then again I never felt much for the butcher skin. The dynamic event period APB had wasn't really... memorable... Titles and skins also aren't a lot of wasted space I imagine, since skins are generated from a single bitmap (I wouldn't say single, but you get the point I guess). Still, if it's significant content that's decent in file/package size, I wouldn't keep it exclusive forever.

I don't think re-releasing exclusive stuff would do that much positive for APB's /pop. The majority of that 90% will just realize it's another poor attempt to mask the sadness with despacito music and tune out halfway through. Still, plenty of modern and thriving games eventually make exclusive items public. It's a waste of content to make exclusive items permanently exclusive, and it only segregates the playerbase (the people that did get the item and want it to stay exclusive vs. the people that didn't have the chance to get the item but want it). An official statement from LO would be nice on this. Eitherway thanks to G1's idea to keep exclusive content permanently exclusive, a very good share of the playerbase will be upset no matter what they say about it. Still, it'd be bad to leave this subject unanswered for much longer.