gremlen

Gold players will either reduce their activity in a game or group up with other gold players. We already seeing this by many missions with full bronzies and silvers teams against 255r gold premades. Your idea will also work as a punishment for gold players because they're willing to play fair matches and not to be forced to babysit with bronzies in their team. It's not a problem of gold players that matchmaking sucks. Hiding threats will only hurt the pop of active players more because people rather leave the game for the proper matchmaking update than deal with it

They have insanely low drop rate. I got poop and something else after playing a year on a 255r character daily logining in game

There was a fence above enf contact outside area that never had a collision.

It won't fix the matchmaking at all and will only ruin the game for those who wants to play only with friends. The core problem is a combination of factors such as faction segregation, 40v40 limited environment and low pop. While lorewise faction segregation makes sense it hurts the matchmaking a lot. For example in one district 40v40 on crim side there're 10 decent gold players while on enf side it's about 20. 10 decent gold enfs will be matched against silvers and newbies or sitting on unopposed missions. Even in the current situation removing faction segregation will help the game a bit. 40v40 environment is also an archaic matchmaking system, it needs to be changed with a cross district system.

This is exactly what I want. An extra button for a weapon reskin choice near skins button.

The reason why I mentioned CSGO is because how its ttk balanced between both sides. T has on average lower ttk because of higher ak47 damage output and being able to one shot an enemy by a headshot with full armor while CT as a defend side has on average slower ttk and m4 can't one shot an enemy with full armor. I mean that longer ttk will hurt attack side in apb by a lot because many times it relies on tight timings of being able to minttk the defend side that made mistake. With longer ttk defend side will have more forgiving mistakes such as bad aiming at the beginning of a corner peeking or being open for few seconds. The goal of attacking in apb is to out strafe first shots of the enemy at the corner so his spread will drastically inrease and then minttk him before he realizes that he failed his aim. With longer ttk the enemy at the corner will have an advantage if he fails to track you at first shots he can reset his aim and keep landing a lot of shots because with rtw style ttk the weapon will have no spread and high accuracy or he can just hide and run away because he will have over 1 second to react to your actions. I have never touched dirty bomb so can't tell about it but Apex Legends has mechanics that prevent you from benefiting a long ttk because it doesn't have auto-healing mechanic like apb and healing takes a lot of time. In apb fights will take forever till you meet the enemy in cqc situation where neither you nor enemy has an opportunity to run away.

No, it won't fix the major problem of apb. It will just change the meta. As I said if FAR will get a buff and appeared to be stronger than ntec then everyone will use it instead of ntec. Same with all other weapons in the same niche. I made an example of csgo because how tough it is to balance a wide variety of choices. Also csgo is an example why longer TTK can hurt attacking side. There's a reason why T side has one shot in a head hitbox meta ak47 while CT has worse damage output and longer ttk on average with m4 choice. There're many situations where attacking side requires to catch milliseconds timings to minttk a defend side as fast as possible. And apb is no exception. Unless LO decides to make an overall rebalance including changing map design and make a proper balance for some spots such as german fortress or waterfront overall. But it requires a huge ton of development and I doubt LO has such resources especially when such balance rework will absolutely go through multiple bad decisions and minor re-tweaks while reaching the best possible solution. It's going to be a dev hell

The problem is that 90% of new weapons were about reinventing the wheel. Cobra is worse carbine but automatic. Ursus is ntec but less stk. Far is basically ntec with slightly worse accuracy at range. SBSR is worse dmr and many other things. You can't balance it right because the core gameplay mechanic of these weapons are the same and the only difference is their stats. If FAR gets a buff and becomes better ntec everyone just switches to it. You can't make people using such core identical weapons on the same rate, people either play far or ntec. There will always be meta. This is the reason why Valve don't add new weapons in csgo after a disaster with revolver and keeps the same meta because it fits the game in the best possible way. They tried changing meta by balancing economy by lowering aug and sig prices to be a more viable choice. So, it caused people just moving into AUG and SIG meta and drop ak and m4. The majority of a playerbase didn't like it. And Valve can't find the proper way to balance it right. They can't even make a proper balance between m4-s and regular m4 to make players choose both instead they just rotate the meta each year between them. Players always choose the best choice. And it's only two weapons while apb has much more weapons in each niche.

The game already has a huge advantage for defend side on the missions. With slower ttk defend side will have even more advantage because getting one bullet that stops your regen will be more forgiving than now. That means you can feel yourself more safer at corners in situations where your enemies are forced to push you.

The long ttk will make the game much worse. First of all attacking the mission will become much harder in many areas because how easy it will to run away to regen hp and comeback to defend the point, especially with a car gameplay meta. Sniper rifles will be dead in 99% scenarios, The meta will be just to drive close to the enemy and try him in cqc to prevent him running away and regen because the game will become more forgiving for him. Semi-auto will be dead for sure because none will want to click 20 times at one enemy, it will quickly exhaust you. The idea of increasing stk means that you won't be able anymore to clutch vs N-amount of enemies by one round + secondary gun. The game will end up as a tactical step by step strategy with trading kills because one guy will just not have an opportunity to keep fighting after the 1st kill without reloading. But if LO will increase the capacity of magazine it will make the game look stupid with ugly numbers (45ap with 14 bullets in one mag). What about long range fights? Should weapons have a limited effective range or maximum damage at any distance? If weapons will keep their effective range, so how many shots I need to land at one enemy at long range? 30? Fighting in this game will look unsatisfied and feel unrewarded. Why not? The only problem here is a big amount of weapons that caused balancing weapons around their most used mods to prevent changing weapon niche by switching different mods. For example Pre-LO ntec was op at most situations with meta ir3 and hs3 but at close-mid range it could destroy in cqc if you switch to cj3, you didn't really need oca or pmg. So, the balance here works like that: instead of switching mods in one weapon, you're forced to switch to other weapons.

I dunno but on forums the feedback was majorly about the length of ttk and majority didn't really like how long it is. The game feels clunky with it.

I tried it, I clearly remember that bloom and recoil weren't a thing on that attempt because obeya, for example, felt the same way as on rtw, a laser gun with small bloom

Back in the days G1 hosted districts with RTW ttk and none really liked long ttk. It just doesn't work in apb and it only makes the game feel clunky and stupid. People had been asking for longer ttk and G1 gave it a try and when these people realized how bad it is in apb suggestions about long ttk was gone on forums. Now I see these suggestions coming back

I have never played overwatch so I don't really know what it is but on streams if feels like a it doesn't have a high recoil

Recoil thing won't work in apb because it requires a lot of tracking. Competitive shooters are either based on flicks and controlling recoil patterns like in csgo or valorant because the character movement is very slow or mostly based on tracking like warzone, apex, apb etc. because it has a fast character movement

Projectile can be synced because we already have opgl, nades and osmaw that uses it but the game should stay a hitscan. Removing the ability to shoot under a car will exponentially make car gameplay much stronger. I don't know why you need more recoil the game is already pretty hard for most players because it requires a good tracking skill unless you're playing against silvers who only manages to move on +W.

While a triggerbot is a big problem of apb because how easy it is to make your own and was even a big problem when EAC existed in the game, removing a crosshair color will kill a balance in the game. APB's pvp contest was made with the vision of letting players getting a lot of information about their enemies, it includes the possibility of shooting under a vehicle and catching enemy's hitboxes at the corner when their character model is not visible but they're able to shoot you. The game needs a dynamic crosshair color

It's in LO's hand to decide to allow or not to allow players from different regions meet up in the match. I doubt they will allow that function unless NA stays dead but it means that NA will be forced to play in EU region and not vice versa. I have no doubts that if cross district system will be implemented someday APB servers will be merged into one big server with district instance being located in different regions and cross district matchmaking will work inside one region. It means that if you join NA district, you will be matched against other NA districts even if EU districts exist on the same world server. The current threat system was made with the vision of how limited possibilities of current matchmaking are. It's not possible to make a proper rank system with a wide rank ladder when players are always limited to 40v40 where in reality they usually have 5-10 players on opposite side free to get matched with them. If we get a cross district matchmaking system there won't be a problem of low golds not wanting to play against other golds because low golds will have infinitely more chances to have an opposition of low golds. This system also makes threat district unnecessary. In fact APB has a hidden rank system that was diminished by visual look of gold, silver, bronze threats. In reality each threat has 10 levels. So 10 level gold and 1 level gold are both gold players in terms of current threat system

I don't think that it's a little sample because modern gaming community is used to get together in the most good projects with an active dev support. For example most of battlefield community moved to COD because it has a better life support and games are better. Decade ago we used to have debates what is better bf or cod and community mostly was divided. Also twitch shows what majority of viewers desire to watch and top 10 on twitch includes 7 pvp based games. No doubt that pvp gets more support by a gaming community worldwide.

According to steamcharts 7 games in top 10 of highest online daily are all heavily based on pvp. Fortnite became super popular when Epic games abandoned the first pve gamemode and turned the game into battleroyale. H1Z1, the first original battleroyale, started as an open world survival that was badly received by many players and then devs turned the game into battleroyale pvp. The most popular multiplayer mode in minecraft is bed wars, a pvp gamemode. For some reason Elden Ring devs didn't make a coop mode, instead they added a pvp mode. I can tell much more examples of many games from the past that succeeded only because it had pvp gamemode. Last time when I saw PvE games getting a success was during mmorpg hype era when WoW on its peak had 10 millions subs. Right now I don't even know recent succeeded pve game with as big population as many modern pvp games.

We had an open conflict district with hidden threats that was badly received, should LO try it again? As I said I'm up for hiding threats as long as I will be sure I always get fair matches. For now the amount of fair matches is so low that I would just quit than being forced to babysit. And from my perspective, is it fair losing my mmr because the game can't maintain fair matches? Would it be fair in csgo if you're a global elite getting matched against a full stack of global elite while your team consists of gold nova? In cs go such thing can't happen but in apb it can and we have a fair compromise with visible threats and /abandonmission command. I do also believe that it's better not only for high gold but also for bad players because when high gold player drops a mission because of a bad team he got, a bad team has much better chances of getting the same skill level opposition than with a high top gold player Merged. The population died because of lack of updates and bad archaic matchmaking system. Everyday on average I'm on 20 winstreak missions and the game has nothing better than this opposition.

Many games of that time relied more on CPUs than on GPUs. Unreal engine generation of that time struggled with allocating all available resources from gpus. That's why not only apb but many other games on UE3 had big problems with providing a stable frametime without stutters. I wonder why people are waiting huge changes with 64bit release. It won't fix problems that caused by the entire engine core.

Even with 3k online matchmaking will still be bad. You're always locked to 40v40 and you will never have the fairest district instance. Also a faction segregation is also a big problem. I think you had a time when opposite faction in a district is literally dead or consist of players with much lower skill level than you. It turns out to infinite loop of empty missions. Valorant reaches 300fps on low end pc while apb's engine can't handle such framerate. The current engine is so ancient, it is from the era when people didn't even think they will ever need something beyond 60fps. Unreal engine 2.5/3 is not optimized to run on high fps. We will never have something beyond 144fps on low end pc and even low end pc that runs valo and fortnite 200+ fps barely runs apb with 144fps and 64bit won't change it, it will only fix stutters and add smoothness.

3k-5k is too optimistic. I will say 1-1.5k at highest and will drop to 500-700 after a month of 64bit update. Many apb players don't realize that this game is too old and ancient. It won't find its audience among modern gamers. Every aspect of the game will negatively be met by modern gamers. For example a terrible optimization that won't be fixed with 64bit. Unreal 2.5 just can't handle more than 144fps and nothing LO can do about it. Gamers with good PCs who never played apb will be confused by such a bad framerate in such an old game. Or a terrible matchmaking with a faction segregation. Not only we're locked to 40v40 when the online is 300 the chances that opposite faction will have an equal skill level to yours are so low. Every modern MMO cuts faction segregation. Even WoW devs removed faction segregation in many aspects of the game

I agree only when the matchmaking gets fixed. I don't want to babysit with lowbie silvers. When I see that I get an empty mission with a full low silver/bronze team I abandon it because matchmaking and current pop can't guarantee me a balanced opposition. Most of the time I get pre-made full gold team against me with my low babies. Also when I get a defending mission I also want to know I can rely on my teammates or I have do it on my own without a basic teamplay.