[Critical fixes] - Required changes for a succesful game experience - Community Feedback

[FluttershyI 52]

1 minute ago, Goldtiger said:

Not a bad list, just some of the things on the list are terrible (i.e. removing perc stunnability). I'm kinda glad someone is laying things out like this but i'd rather you have been general about things rather than specific about rebalances.

Well, Maybe I went to specific in that case from what I've read. Will adjust it, it is also not necessarily my own opinion.

[Haganu 104]

Very decent list OP. 

[FluttershyI 52]

2 hours ago, BrandonBranderson said:

Sorry, didn't get to finish typing and posted before I was done lol.  I like the current bounty system because A) It's one of the few remaining functional pieces of the original APB, and a crucial one at that.  I know I know just because something is from the original game doesn't make it great, but my B) point is that as strange as this may sound, it helps balance missions.  Say someone in your opposition is doing insanely well and there's no chance for you to take them down and you can't call backup for example.  If they're completely dominating then they'll get a bounty and anyone in the district could kill them, thus giving those who had no chance before a quick chance to get in there and finish the objective.  Plus it's just a nice way to get some bonus cash.  If it were removed then that would remove another element of the witnessing system too, which has been neutered over the years as well.

New idea! Would you agree/like it if the bounty system would be disabled only for the final stage of a mission? Then it would effect less mission wins/losses.

[Kylegrey2 31]

56 minutes ago, Goldtiger said:

Not a bad list, just some of the things on the list are terrible (i.e. removing perc stunnability). I'm kinda glad someone is laying things out like this but i'd rather you have been general about things rather than specific about rebalances.

Yeah, i hate getting stunned by grenades but i fully accept it as part of the game. No need to mess with it. I feel like some people want game wide changes based on what they personally like or dislike vs things that equally effect everyone in a negative way.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Kylegrey2

[BrandonBranderson 672]

1 hour ago, FluttershyI said:

New idea! Would you agree/like it if the bounty system would be disabled only for the final stage of a mission? Then it would effect less mission wins/losses.

I think that would effect wins and losses just as much, because the final stage is the ultimate decider of whether or not you win.  I think the bounty system is good as it currently is.  Not being stubborn here, I genuinely think altering it will only lead to more problems and frustration. 

[Goldtiger 133]

Just now, BrandonBranderson said:

I think that would effect wins and losses just as much, because the final stage is the ultimate decider of whether or not you win.  I think the bounty system is good as it currently is.  Not being stubborn here, I genuinely think altering it will only lead to more problems and frustration. 

Agreed. The bounty system is annoying, but nerfing it down to not effect missions at all will most likely lead to more issues. And after all, I feel like having to worry about everyone in the district coming to kill you is an interesting way to spice up missions.

[vsb 6171]

1 hour ago, Goldtiger said:

Agreed. The bounty system is annoying, but nerfing it down to not effect missions at all will most likely lead to more issues. And after all, I feel like having to worry about everyone in the district coming to kill you is an interesting way to spice up missions.

popping max notoriety and immediately getting gunned down by a random that just happened to be 3 feet away (and probably the same faction as you) is not fun, especially if it costs you the stage/match

[Goldtiger 133]

1 minute ago, Glaciers said:

popping max notoriety and immediately getting gunned down by a random that just happened to be 3 feet away (and probably the same faction as you) is not fun, especially if it costs you the stage/match

Getting gunned down in general is not fun. I think you mean that it's not fair for you. But the only fix i could suggest is a period of invulenrability to randoms until you can actually be shot.

[vsb 6171]

46 minutes ago, Goldtiger said:

Getting gunned down in general is not fun. I think you mean that it's not fair for you. But the only fix i could suggest is a period of invulenrability to randoms until you can actually be shot.

if it’s not fair it’s almost always not fun, the easiest solution would be to allow enforcers to pay off prestige levels like criminals can pay off notoriety levels 

[claude 223]

20 hours ago, FluttershyI said:

Weapons - Buff/change unpopular/barely used weapons, or revert certain unnecessary nerfs (e.g. Norseman)

Modifications - Buff/change unpopular/barely used modifications (e.g. Cargo capacity)

Vehicles - Buff/change unpopular/barely used cars (e.g. Slow/clipping or non-heavy vehicles)

So you think these aren't "critical"

 

20 hours ago, FluttershyI said:

Percussion grenades - Rework/Re-balance

 

While this is something REALLY important that LO needs to tend to? What the hell is wrong with percs? They're perfect the way they are lol.

 

20 hours ago, FluttershyI said:

Remote detonator - Remove or re-balance

Do people actually say this?

 

20 hours ago, FluttershyI said:

Modifications - Adjust required minimum levels to remove an unfair disadvantage for higher level players

 

Rank up your characters, don't take away reasons to progress in APB, it's almost pointless in the first place.

[CookiePuss 5379]

18 minutes ago, claude said:

Do people actually say this?

The lack of any real cooldown timer is a common complaint. 

As is, you can spam remote det as fast as you can respawn your car. 

 

The suggestion has been made to match the remote det cooldown time with that of the meteor mod (90 seconds). 

[claude 223]

10 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

The suggestion has been made to match the remote det cooldown time with that of the meteor mod (90 seconds). 

I guess that's fair.

[FluttershyI 52]

18 hours ago, BrandonBranderson said:

I think that would effect wins and losses just as much, because the final stage is the ultimate decider of whether or not you win.  I think the bounty system is good as it currently is.  Not being stubborn here, I genuinely think altering it will only lead to more problems and frustration. 

That's why it would effect the wins or losses a lot less, since you wouldn't actually become bounty during the final stage of a mission

1 hour ago, claude said:

So you think these aren't "critical"

Well, not critical as in ruining gameplay experience. Seing more variety in-game would be great but I don't feel like buffing a Norseman or whatever would be main priority at this stage

[TheWalke 17]

what about the ntec versions.......like every version of the ntec 5 is OP af and i dont get it that Little Orbit didn´t want to nerf these shit guns.... the damage is way to high.... the Range of that Gun is ridiculous.

idk just nerf this guns really..... 

[BrandonBranderson 672]

24 minutes ago, FluttershyI said:

That's why it would effect the wins or losses a lot less, since you wouldn't actually become bounty during the final stage of a mission

I guess I misread that.  In that case all it would do is make it so that the team that has been dominating the entire mission would be given a sure win because then they wouldn't have to worry about the rest of the district coming to kill them.  Changing this is just a bad idea.  It would just tip the balance in favor of the more skilled team which defeats the purpose of it entirely.  The bounty system was designed to keep skilled players in check.  That's why it's so important to have in a game that uses an asymmetrical matchmaking system where it has a chance to match newbies up against vets.  Removing the bounties during the final stage would just make matchmaking more punishing to the new players that it should be trying to help a little.

Edited August 6, 2019 by BrandonBranderson

[FluttershyI 52]

23 minutes ago, BrandonBranderson said:

I guess I misread that.  In that case all it would do is make it so that the team that has been dominating the entire mission would be given a sure win because then they wouldn't have to worry about the rest of the district coming to kill them.  Changing this is just a bad idea.  It would just tip the balance in favor of the more skilled team which defeats the purpose of it entirely.  The bounty system was designed to keep skilled players in check.  That's why it's so important to have in a game that uses an asymmetrical matchmaking system where it has a chance to match newbies up against vets.  Removing the bounties during the final stage would just make matchmaking more punishing to the new players that it should be trying to help a little.

I'm not sure about that tbh. It could just aswell be the players from the worse team wich reaches notoriety level 5 during the final stage. I feel like it shouldn't be random draw to decide wich team wins, just the better team. Also really pro players (only criminal chars) might pay off their notoriety wich gives them an advantage over enforcers. I think matchmaking should adress skill level and variation in opposition, the bounty system won't make that much more fair, a stronger (or pro) team will probably win no matter what or even have a negative effect on more missions because they'll dump even more players who are not even part of their mission. That will cause other missions with less good players to be negatively effected aswell. It happends a lot that players can dominate their own mission and finish as bounty while killing multiple other players trying to do their objectives. Therefor in my opinion the system just makes everything less fair and more random. - Last issue would be that teamkilling resolves being a bounty, so it's not only the opposite faction to worry about. In my opinion it's so many drawbacks... The money is cool and maybe in some cases it'll give players a chance to win, but it's not worth the current negative effects. I'de at least plead for a rework of the system!

[CookiePuss 5379]

52 minutes ago, TheWalke said:

what about the ntec versions.......like every version of the ntec 5 is OP af and i dont get it that Little Orbit didn´t want to nerf these shit guns.... the damage is way to high.... the Range of that Gun is ridiculous.

idk just nerf this guns really..... 

The damage is fine and the range is 50m.

[BrandonBranderson 672]

3 minutes ago, FluttershyI said:

I'm not sure about that tbh. It could just aswell be the players from the worse team wich reaches notoriety level 5 during the final stage. I feel like it shouldn't be random draw to decide wich team wins, just the better team. Also really pro players (only criminal chars) might pay off their notoriety wich gives them an advantage over enforcers. I think matchmaking should adress skill level and variation in opposition, the bounty system won't make that much more fair, a stronger (or pro) team will probably win no matter what or even have a negative effect on more missions because they'll dump even more players who are not even part of their mission. That will cause other missions with less good players to be negatively effected aswell. It happends a lot that players can dominate their own mission and finish as bounty while killing multiple other players trying to do their objectives. Therefor in my opinion the system just makes everything less fair and more random. - Last issue would be that teamkilling resolves being a bounty, so it's not only the opposite faction to worry about. In my opinion it's so many drawbacks... The money is cool and maybe in some cases it'll give players a chance to win, but it's not worth the current negative effects. I'de at least plead for a rework of the system!

Yeah I'm still not buying it.  Crims as far as I can tell, never pay off their bounty, especially during a mission.  Why would one go through the hassle of putting aside their mission for the moment to go to a contact and pay off?  The only thing about this system I believe should be changed is team killing getting rid of the bounty.  About them killing other players in other missions, Why just disable it for the final stage then if they were free to do it earlier in the mission?  Nobody outside the mission knows or cares if you're on the final stage, and what's to  stop someone who's in an earlier stage of a different mission to come in and mess up your final stage?  Like I said before, this system is designed to keep skilled players in check, and does that fairly well.

So I agree with you about teamkilling should not resolve the bounty, but I really can't get behind anything else you're saying.  The bounty system is (one of the few things) working as intended right now, and given APB's track history I feel like a rework of it would only break it, or a different rule set would only make things worse for everyone.  Nothing should be changed except for teamkilling reducing notoriety.

[FluttershyI 52]

8 minutes ago, BrandonBranderson said:

Yeah I'm still not buying it.  Crims as far as I can tell, never pay off their bounty, especially during a mission.  Why would one go through the hassle of putting aside their mission for the moment to go to a contact and pay off?  The only thing about this system I believe should be changed is team killing getting rid of the bounty.  About them killing other players in other missions, Why just disable it for the final stage then if they were free to do it earlier in the mission?  Nobody outside the mission knows or cares if you're on the final stage, and what's to  stop someone who's in an earlier stage of a different mission to come in and mess up your final stage?  Like I said before, this system is designed to keep skilled players in check, and does that fairly well.

So I agree with you about teamkilling should not resolve the bounty, but I really can't get behind anything else you're saying.  The bounty system is (one of the few things) working as intended right now, and given APB's track history I feel like a rework of it would only break it, or a different rule set would only make things worse for everyone.  Nothing should be changed except for teamkilling reducing notoriety.

Well my most important point is that it happends more than often that I as a relatively skilled player can survive like 50% of a mission killing less skilled players working on their objectives (so in that case it works the other way around) or even them being in their final stage of a mission. Instead of the skilled players being killed by others they are an additive challenge for less skilled players in different missions. You are just putting more skilled players into the mix who get the right to kill everybody they'de like outside of their mission. Also it's easy to become bounty so less skilled players will be bounty aswell.

 

When it comes to notoriety, you pay off usually before new missions. - Also disabling teamkilling dropping notoriety would at least be something, so I certainly agree. Each part of rework would resolve these issues is something I'de like.

Edited August 6, 2019 by FluttershyI

[CookiePuss 5379]

I personally would like to see N5 / P5 only activated between missions, not during. 

 

Seems odd to punish a player for doing well.

 

Making it activate between mission could be a reward as it gives you something fun to do while waiting. 

 

(Also, only allow out of mission players to attack / be attacked by N5 / P5)

[Khakis 28]

23 hours ago, FluttershyI said:

Percussion grenades - Rework/Re-balance

Low-Yield Fragmentation Grenade - Re-balance/reduce amount

 

Shields (usables) - Remove or re-balance

I like your list but I will run down the few things I didn't agree with and my reasons why. Again, all highly opinionated so maybe I am in the wrong here:

 

-Percussion grenades are VERY annoying. I get very upset when I'm in a good fight and I see a grenade popped at my feet with no time for me to react in cqb situations. The thing is that percs don't do enough damage anyway as upsetting as they are. In fact, over time you realize that when an enemy is throwing percs, it's their final resort and leaves them open to a rushing attack, leaving them dead easily.

-Low-Yields are great in many ways. Low fuse timer (sometimes a disadvantage though), 3 nades, and a farther throw. What brings down their tier of power is the reduced damage and sometimes the lowered fuse timer. Everyone uses concs these days and I found myself long ago switching over to concs since the reward is great in comparison to its risk, leaving low-yields to just be...there.

-Shields shouldn't really be touched. I never use them, but when you face an opponent using shields, its not hard at all to go up against. A simple nade will force the player to move, even destroy the shield itself. And usually a player using a shield is at low health, so shooting the shield enough (which a shield doesnt take long to go down) would spook the player enough to pop out and fight it out. Shields seem to have the most power when used to physically block an important passageway to an objective, like a ladder.

23 hours ago, FluttershyI said:

Modifications - Adjust required minimum levels to remove an unfair disadvantage for higher level players

Ehhh, it isn't hard to reach 195 and people enjoy games that allow a progression system to create advantages, which creates a grind feeling to committed enough players.

 

23 hours ago, FluttershyI said:

Remote detonator - Remove or re-balance

Not sure if anyone really cares for this

 

23 hours ago, FluttershyI said:

N-TEC 5 - Re-balance

HIGHLY controversial topic. But I believe that N-TECs are fine. They are definitely one of the strongest weapons in the game, but only in the right hands. Give an N-TEC to a newer player, and it'd be trash. N-TEC on its own has a learning curve to it, and once learned, is very rewarding.

 

On 8/5/2019 at 12:21 PM, FluttershyI said:

Bounty system - Re-work (for active missions)

The bounty system that is in place now is unfair, yes. The system punishes a player for being good, technically, and I think someone else said that already in this post.. In a way, it isn't a completely bad thing, as sometimes an outside player can take out an opponent of yours that is completely stomping you in the mission, and gives the losing side a fighting chance. What I DON'T like about it is not having a greater punishment for taking out a bounty of the same faction. Way too often, I've been killed by my own faction just by someone wanting to rid themselves of a bounty, or someone just trying to take out my own bounty just for the hell of it. It isn't fun.

 

Everything else I agree with to some extent. For example, it would be nice to have always had a secondary to be seen on the scoreboard player info and to buff some lower ended cars. Right now the state of the game is seeing the same high ended cars. Over. and over.

[FluttershyI 52]

21 minutes ago, Khakis said:

I like your list but I will run down the few things I didn't agree with and my reasons why. Again, all highly opinionated so maybe I am in the wrong here:

 

-Percussion grenades are VERY annoying. I get very upset when I'm in a good fight and I see a grenade popped at my feet with no time for me to react in cqb situations. The thing is that percs don't do enough damage anyway as upsetting as they are. In fact, over time you realize that when an enemy is throwing percs, it's their final resort and leaves them open to a rushing attack, leaving them dead easily.

-Low-Yields are great in many ways. Low fuse timer (sometimes a disadvantage though), 3 nades, and a farther throw. What brings down their tier of power is the reduced damage and sometimes the lowered fuse timer. Everyone uses concs these days and I found myself long ago switching over to concs since the reward is great in comparison to its risk, leaving low-yields to just be...there.

-Shields shouldn't really be touched. I never use them, but when you face an opponent using shields, its not hard at all to go up against. A simple nade will force the player to move, even destroy the shield itself. And usually a player using a shield is at low health, so shooting the shield enough (which a shield doesnt take long to go down) would spook the player enough to pop out and fight it out. Shields seem to have the most power when used to physically block an important passageway to an objective, like a ladder.

Ehhh, it isn't hard to reach 195 and people enjoy games that allow a progression system to create advantages, which creates a grind feeling to committed enough players.

The issue with shields is that in certain situations it's almost functioning like some kind of god mode when you are tagged or would normally die, unlike kevlar or the elpherine spray wich will allows you to run away more quickly or have (some) extra health there's no downsides to it either. Especially when you're level with your opponent or on higher ground placing the shield, it can be a challenge or impossible to kill the other player behind the shield since you can't pierce it or shoot over it unless you have a commander or cap 40. Taking the time to trow a grenade will allow the player to easially kill you or you'll already have been shot by his teammates in the time you try to re-position yourself behing the shield, wich of course also has allowed the player to re-gen his health fully. - Just an example here:

 

 

[Fortune Runner 796]

On 8/5/2019 at 9:54 AM, BrandonBranderson said:

Sorry, didn't get to finish typing and posted before I was done lol.  I like the current bounty system

just a fyi.

MattScott said in the past how he was interested in looking into changes to the bounty system to not interfere with missions.

I forget if it was the Q&A or the forums or where ever that it was mentioned.

My personal opinion is i like the bountys but wish they did not interfere with missions

20 minutes ago, FluttershyI said:

The issue with shields is that in certain situations it's almost functioning like some kind of god mode when you are tagged or would normally die, unlike kevlar or the elpherine spray wich will allows you to run away more quickly or have (some) extra health there's no downsides to it either.

its a shield..... its for shielding so I don't see the problem to have mobile cover.

its not like it lasts forever and is vulnerable to grenades on the sides , so I do not understand the problem of living a few more seconds when your ops aren't supposed to lay down and die for you.

[FluttershyI 52]

5 minutes ago, Fortune Runner said:

its a shield..... its for shielding so I don't see the problem to have mobile cover.

its not like it lasts forever and is vulnerable to grenades on the sides , so I do not understand the problem of living a few more seconds when your ops aren't supposed to lay down and die for you.

It's a huge issue to get the ability to stay alive a few more seconds? I can think of many situations/objectives and fights with multiple players involved. Of course it's meant to give cover but it's just not a good idea in APB. You can just drop it almost instantly in any place to get almost 100% safety, certainly when your teammates are involved in the fight the enemy will have no chance to coock a nade in most situations. Also in case he is tagged aswell you can just peak over it quickly and kill him (an enemy would stand no chance), if you'de have to hold the shield it would also be really different.

 

TTK of weapons is like over just half a second aswell, so a few seconds without piercing ability... I don't know.

[CookiePuss 5379]

2 hours ago, Khakis said:

Ehhh, it isn't hard to reach 195 and people enjoy games that allow a progression system to create advantages, which creates a grind feeling to committed enough players.

It also creates unfair matches.

I'm not saying whether or not it should be changed, but that is the effect it has on game play.