Jump to content
Lixil

[PC] PATCH NOTES 1.20.0 (1161) DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

Quote

Some other changes that we are making concern the OBIR and FFA. In both districts these guns will both now prevent you from weapon swapping while the re-fire or burst fire timers are active.

not looking forward to testing this

  • Dislike 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OBIR and FFA: I guess you are experimenting changes that are not requested by the community. That's OK. But i suggest you guys focus first on the most needed weapons and leave the experimentation for a later opportunity.

Edited by Algoz
  • Like 1
  • Dislike 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good changes for the obir.
I haven't played in a long time so I can't say how it is right now, but back when I still played only few used the obir switch, even though it's way too powerful.
for a time I've mained obir + jersey devil and cornered a lot... it's so easy finishing people up close with the JD when you already stole 490hp with a burst around the corner...

lowyield nade changes are interesting... they obviously need some change...

test A sounds real good... lowyields have always been easier to pinpoint on targets (atleast for me, by a lot) so pushing them more into the "precise nade" category with reduced radius and damage is a good move I think. but will test A LYG's still kill in 2 hits? what about test B?

I think test B is also a nice approach to change them, even though I'm not a fan of the timer reduction...

please give us some numbers on damage 🙂

  • Like 1
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still think you should only be able to carry 2 low yields.

  • Like 3
  • Dislike 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

State of the game is gonna a lot better when Low Yields are finished being tweaked, thank you.

Hopefully we can take a look at The Harbinger soon and give that a few tweaks. Pew pew pew. There's a SnaaAAakke in mah BOOT yeeehaw

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upcoming test-values were kept secret but I can still share my initial thoughts

 

With reference to apbdb:

 

unknown.png

 

Test District A

 

What I do feel that justifies the ability to carry 3 half-bricks/8balls is that they BARELY offer any radius of explosion. A late-game fun-item for players to play with (or punish non-moving Campers). Values were not given for the new Low-Yields to be tested in Test Districts A & B. I can not speak for everyone, but since they would "requires a more accurate throw as we have reduced the size of the explosion", I would be personally happy with a hard radius nerf. Something like the arbitrary-values shown above those green-columns. If the nerf is not significant and still remains comparable to other grenades, I would be MUCH happier with the common suggestion of Limit Low-Yield carry amount to two.

 

Test District B

 

It was declared that new Low-Yields B will have the same radii as they do currently, plus an increased fuse timer of 1 second. What you have basically created here is Standard Frag-Grenades 2.0. They offer less damage but can be thrown much further... even much further than current low-yields because they get another extra second of flight-time. I can already see this being abused in some locations even with the damage-reduction. Unless the reduction in damage is sharp, Test District A could be the better deal.

Edited by Lily Rain
Added 8 balls and Half-brick radii to the chart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since the obir is now effectively receiving a cqc nerf, are there any plans to change its sprint delay to give it slightly more mobility?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still completely baffled why you guys won't share the exact stat changes. Low-Yields being made weaker is a very good thing. However, if the damage change is 575 > 500, then the change is no good. I'd also like to see how large the new max damage radius is in comparison to the other grenades.

 

I'd be able to draw better conclusions if I had the numbers, but whatever.

  • Thanks 1
  • Dislike 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lily Rain said:

I would be MUCH happier with the common suggestion of Limit Low-Yield carry amount to two

That wouldn't fix it being a better frag grenade (at least for anti-personal) than the regular frag grenades

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, crusade said:

I'd be able to draw better conclusions if I had the numbers, but whatever.

And that's exactly the reason why you should test the changes when the servers come back online.

 

Armchair stat scrutiny helps absolutely noone.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SKay said:

And that's exactly the reason why you should test the changes when the servers come back online.

 

Armchair stat scrutiny helps absolutely noone.

isn't it pretty obvious that both are needed to properly test things?...

yes, you have to field-test things and not just look at the stats, but field testing with knowing what exactly you got in your hands is so much better.
otherwise sometimes you just don't know what's going on in certain situations if you lack information...

both is critical to proper testing. theory and practice.

Edited by Snubnose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SKay said:

And that's exactly the reason why you should test the changes when the servers come back online.

 

Armchair stat scrutiny helps absolutely noone.

We would like to avoid another RFP-esque experimental change. As long as we get them later in the day, I'm fine with not having stats initially (because let's be honest, testing in the test districts is only possible on patch day)

 

Tho I will say having stats at the start for something like grenades would be nice

Edited by Weeb TheEpicGuyV2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SKay said:

And that's exactly the reason why you should test the changes when the servers come back online.

 

Armchair stat scrutiny helps absolutely noone.

armchair stat scrutiny is pretty valuable when combined with actual testing because it allows players to jump straight into testing, as opposed to bumbling around estimating values which still might end up being wrong

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Snubnose said:

isn't it pretty obvious that both is needed to properly test things?...

yes, you have to field-test things and not just look at the stats, but field testing with knowing what exactly you got in your hands is so much better.
otherwise sometimes you just don't know what's going on in certain situations if you lack information...

both is critical to proper testing. theory and practice.

when people KNOW the difference they behave differently and this community is full of folks who will just flat out refuse to do a test if they THINK the numbers don't work for THEM, this is a Blind test, companies do it all the time, its a legitimate research method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Solamente said:

armchair stat scrutiny is pretty valuable when combined with actual testing

Except that hadn't happened before when the exact stat changes were given. No-one bothered. Not now, not even back in the day.

 

No issue with giving stats at a later date to give time for blind testing. But the effort needs to be put in first by the community.

 

Armchair stat scrutiny is the main reason why a lot of APB's items are as they are. Because people thought they knew better and didn't bother actually testing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SKay said:

Except that hadn't happened before when the exact stat changes were given. No-one bothered. Not now, not even back in the day.

you mean the first round of rfp changes which were so immediately and obviously off the mark that even orbit (weeks later of course) said “woops we messed up” ?

 

i think you might be confusing correlation with causation

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Solamente said:

you mean the first round of rfp changes which were so immediately and obviously off the mark that even orbit (weeks later of course) said “woops we messed up” ?

You're now proving my point, thanks.

 

Experimentation with changes is the aim of the game, trying to see where they could push the RFP to. They never said "woops we messed up", that'd imply a mistake was made when they were experimenting on where to place the RFP. It was never pushed to the LIVE action districts, it was in a closed off area where the testing of the changes was encouraged, yet no chance was given by the wider community for the aforementioned reason of "they thought they knew better". There is 0 excuse for not testing the changes.

 

You think they were off the mark based on the stats. Did you test them? If the answer is no, you can't just assume your viewpoint is correct. If you're not willing to even bother confirm what you think then this rodeo will continue going around in circles and you will not get your stats. If you want stats, you gotta put in the work.

 

Don't just assume. Confirm.

  • Like 2
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i havent and wont jump into the testing district mainly because idk what im testing... they dont give us any documentation. give me some numbers ill test it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SKay said:

You're now proving my point, thanks.

 

Experimentation with changes is the aim of the game, trying to see where they could push the RFP to. They never said "woops we messed up", that'd imply a mistake was made when they were experimenting on where to place the RFP. It was never pushed to the LIVE action districts, it was in a closed off area where the testing of the changes was encouraged, yet no chance was given by the wider community for the aforementioned reason of "they thought they knew better". There is 0 excuse for not testing the changes.

 

You think they were off the mark based on the stats. Did you test them? If the answer is no, you can't just assume your viewpoint is correct. If you're not willing to even bother confirm what you think then this rodeo will continue going around in circles and you will not get your stats. If you want stats, you gotta put in the work.

 

Don't just assume. Confirm.

i did test the changes, even though i already knew they were going to be garbage 

 

lo and behold having exact parameters meant it took me all of 10 minutes to confirm that the changes were indeed garbage 

 

and idk about you but “After a somewhat uneven start” (from the august blogpost) sure sounds like orbit was aware of their initial balancing idea mistakes

 

 

Edited by Solamente
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nijavid said:

bring back riot 

ha

ha

ha

ha

ha

ha

...

 

Wait are you serious ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ketog I never had the chance to play riot since no one on Jericho was in there when I had time to play so I want to. but thats just how I am

 

a lot of people refused to help with testing but before that would gripe about wanting to do  testing for APB.

SKay and Solamente both have valid points about testing but in this case we are talking about APB and how people play in their comfort zone a lot.

blind data or not , people need to go in and test regardless and many seemed to gripe on Jericho about wanting missions instead of putting in effort to test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...