Why are you nerfing the NTEC?

[GhosT 1301]

56 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

The pellet system itself was a buff to all shotguns, Ogre included. 

Range nerf is largely pointless due to the large pellet spread of the Ogre. 

 

Fact is its always been a bad gun, maybe you are just noticing it for the first time. 

 

Nah, each ogre nerf gave it less and less range, including LOs.

[CookiePuss 5378]

1 minute ago, GhosT said:

 

Nah, each ogre nerf gave it less and less range, including LOs.

Right, but with a spread of 150cm @10m, giving it more range than that matters less because you'd be missing nearly all your pellets at the previous 27m max range. (when compared to say range changes for a weapon like the cr762).

[Tenginima 74]

21 hours ago, Salvick said:

 

What does it mean "much more experienced players such as myself" ? It means your wall of text is more valid than what anyone else could say? 

I love how you won't even try to dispute my claims, and the wall of text is to highlight specifics and details, kinda hard not to do a wall of text if you want to be thorough. But as I expected, you wouldn't even try because you are wrong lol.

 

And yeah, it means that my wall of text is more valid then others.

15 hours ago, TheJellyGoo said:

You keep saying how it's is not the case with the N-TEC being to strong yet you keep providing arguments that it is.

Just look at this paragraph, please explain to me how more weapons being used isn't a more balanced and larger meta? That's exactly what is needed.

Literally your only supportive argument to your opinion was the "git gud" one which still sucks especially if you're trying to validate it as a FC-hero.

Ironically, I am saying those exact things because the NTEC still is not OP, if it was, then it would be as good if not even better in FC, which it isn't.

[Tenginima 74]

14 hours ago, Evagelyne said:

Friend, do you know what the term concise means? One of the first things I learned when writing APA is, "clear, concise, and concrete". Your walls of text, your effort you put in, is literally being wasted because of your approach. You can get the same message across without the gratuitous megalomaniacal rants. Just saying.

 

Also, if you're going to call @Revoluzzer and @GhosT out, you should tag them. Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't notice unless they choose to sift through that blazing catastrophe.

 

Just my opinion, as I did actually read most of that dumpster fire of a post, Fight Club statistics or scenarios don't mean jack when balancing around missions. There's no vehicles (not really), no objectives to protect, ammo is essentially irrelevant, the game isn't balanced around teams of that size in missions, etc. I could go on as I'm really only getting started, but it's late. Goodnight.

My approach matters not, for I am not here to change the opinions of those that are wrong, I am simply here to state facts because I had nothing better to do at the time. And FC stats are very relevant, as a weapon sandbox environment it is extremely relevant. I've already stated why the game is the way it is, and about what you mentioned about the game not being balanced around a lot of players in 1 missions is more true for missions. However smaller skirmishes in FC are very close to missions. And about the "ammo is essentially irrelevant" point, you all have ammo boxes, which, effectivly leads to infinite ammo. And there's no excuse to not at least have Medium ones.

 

This dumpster fire of a post of mine is simply the truth, and I didn't tag them because I did not know of that function. 

[Tenginima 74]

12 hours ago, GhosT said:

 

Boi, you have anger issues.

 

And your rant about me and Revoluzzer is hillarious.

I like how you decide to just randomly pick two out of the many people that want the N-TEC nerfed solely because they've been around for a long time, and then go "lol u guys are bad af xd" without ever seeing us play.

Also funny how you think FC stats are noteworthy and consider someone as "good" or "skilled". It is rather easy to get to the top of the scoreboard in both FCs, especially with meta weapons.

 

I can't speak for Revoluzzer as I've never seen him play, but without leaning myself too far out the window I can say after all these years I'm good enough to hold my grounds, even against some of the best premades. Sure there's people better than me, and I'm completely fine with that. Can't be the best player on earth, mostly because my hyper reaction sweat times are over as I haven't been a kid for quite some time now. Gotta say I do miss my BFBC2 and MW2 times.

 

//Edit: Your "git gud" argument. Now what if I told you my opinion about the N-TEC has formed with me playing it for a long time, not getting wrecked by it and crying as a result of that?

Man, I don't have anger management issues, I have ego issues. And yeah, i've fought you plenty times in fc, you're good, compared to the rest of the game at least, but compared to the top dogs you aren't even close. And I didn't pick you 2 out randomly, you 2 are just the ones that bug me the most. And about the FC stats, I mostly use niche or non-meta weapons, SWARM for instance, is just an easy way to the top because I like the gun, same with SHAW, which is far from op. Meta guns makes it easier yeah, but even with that logic, I still ruthlessly beat most players in FC no matter what their weapons are. And again, if we use that logic, let's say in Abington ,16 out of 20 players on your team uses Meta weapons, and you use them as well, and consistently outperform them all, even when they are good. That, no matter how you put it is skill. 

 

That's great if you can hold the ground, you're still outplayed however, that is my point. And I can speak for Revo, which, if you read my entire post, my opinion is already clear on that.

 

The "git gud" argument from my side still holds ground, because just like how CSGO pro's are the ones that should decide what is changed and what isn't in CS, the same principle applies here. Fact is, a vote should be made by the defacto best players, to clear up this mess. Again, you're good, you're just not at the top of the hierarchy, which is OK in the sense that I won't tell you that you're a worthless human, you just don't know enough of balance. And untop of that, I could say the same about the SWARM, i'm able to outgun must guns in the game with that gun, but it's far from OP. So you playing a gun a lot does not make it OP, simply you got more experience with it, ofc it will seem strong then. But even if that wasn't the case, unless it is blatantly OP like the AMG, then your words have no merit, because you are you.

 

And for the record, I am super full of myself, because I am tired of people not talking sense and I think that a "because I am this and that" is a good way of talking, especially when you got a damn good track record, as I said to the person that said that my post was a dumpster fire, I am not here to change your minds, I am simply here to stroke my own ego, and to tell people they're wrong and do that task with facts and reason. And I do it like an pleasant fellow because it's like therapy for me.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Tenginima

[Jilleroo 349]

12 minutes ago, Tenginima said:

My approach matters not, for I am not here to change the opinions of those that are wrong, I am simply here to state facts because I had nothing better to do at the time.

Nahhh, you didn't.

12 minutes ago, Tenginima said:

However smaller skirmishes in FC are very close to missions. And about the "ammo is essentially irrelevant" point, you all have ammo boxes, which, effectivly leads to infinite ammo. And there's no excuse to not at least have Medium ones.

 

This dumpster fire of a post of mine is simply the truth, and I didn't tag them because I did not know of that function. 

That's your retort? Ammo boxes? None of the other things I said are relevant? Okay. I guess FC "skirmishes" simulate mission environments 1:1. Of course though, you're not here to change anyone's mind or anything, you just want to call their opinions wrong, explain why they're wrong, and then go into so much detail about it that you literally render yourself irrelevant.

 

That's the part you say 'thanks' for explaining a function of a forum you weren't aware of. Not that I expect courtesy from a FC God-King or whatever you are.

[Tenginima 74]

12 minutes ago, Evagelyne said:

Nahhh, you didn't.

That's your retort? Ammo boxes? None of the other things I said are relevant? Okay. I guess FC "skirmishes" simulate mission environments 1:1. Of course though, you're not here to change anyone's mind or anything, you just want to call their opinions wrong, explain why they're wrong, and then go into so much detail about it that you literally render yourself irrelevant.

 

That's the part you say 'thanks' for explaining a function of a forum you weren't aware of. Not that I expect courtesy from a FC God-King or whatever you are.

What's your proof that I had nothing better to do with my time?

 

I did say why it's wrong, if you read my post I stated very clearly what's wrong with missions, because of how APB is currently structured I also said that in order to fix it, APB needs a major overhaul. But to state it more clearly. We could start by adding more cover to the ingame world, more in and out cover in order to approach some situations easier. Nerfing cars, making sure that health can't regen in them while hurt. Those are some of the things that can be done. Fix weapon inbalances, by balancing the map.

 

I've stated why their opinion is wrong with my post, hence why I went through FC as an example and how that ties in with missions, and why nerfing the NTEC does not solve the problem with the game.

 

The fact that FC is more balanced is just because cars is a non issue, car gameplaying is not a thing. And you fix car  gameplaying with one of the suggested solutions that I made in the 2nd paragraph.

 

You do protect objectives in FC, atleast in Abington, that's where all the kills are. Sure, you protect them because of kills, while in missions you protect them to win, small difference, but makes for a pretty big gameplay difference. 

 

I also did go over the teamsize, and how it's ironically making it more balanced, because of the size. This is not true for missions because the size of the mission does not scale with the amount of players, hence why anything above a 4v4 can be really badly balanced, aswell as certain 2v2's.

 

The skirmish aspect is relevant though, because the maps are more balanced.

 

The amount of information is relevant, as it proves my points, by giving examples, few people even bother to give a proper response, because they are wrong, but don't want to admit it and rather do a "TLDR" thing.

 

And I am not even sure why you want a thanks, why is this important? You simply corrected me, and that's that, I appreciate the help, but felt no need to say thanks, is this even an issue lol?

Edited September 28, 2019 by Tenginima

[Noob_Guardian 417]

1 hour ago, Tenginima said:

I love how you won't even try to dispute my claims, and the wall of text is to highlight specifics and details, kinda hard not to do a wall of text if you want to be thorough. But as I expected, you wouldn't even try because you are wrong lol.

 

And yeah, it means that my wall of text is more valid then others.

Ironically, I am saying those exact things because the NTEC still is not OP, if it was, then it would be as good if not even better in FC, which it isn't.

Fightclub is NOT a  means for weapon balance. Just saying. In fightclub you can use whatever weapon works and go with it and "generally" do well if you're half decent and it's nothing like missions, but you will ALWAYS see a pattern with weapon usage. Not only that, but map matters for weapons as well. Hence why you generally see far more mid-long range weapons in baylan and waterfront, rather than asylum where everyone is using cqc to mid.

 

Example: See a lot of ntecs, joker carbines. Someone goes nfas, then more go, then everyones running cqc and nfas in asylum.

 

Now, why isn't fightclub a good representation? Because it's too situational. You don't see people using ntec too much in asylum because its a cqc based map, where cqc is just plain better. Ntecs don't ofc dominate this, but they do also do rather well. You're more than likely to facepalm into a ton of shotguns and oca's in the 15-30m ranges, rather than other rifles and weapons that the ntec easily dominates. Why? Because that's the map. And that's not something the ntec is "incredible" at doing... well, most rifles actually, which is why you generally don't see them as much in comparison to more easily sprayed cqc weapons.

 

Then we can look at baylan. Ntec does rather well here, and you tend to see a lot more of them, because of how open most of the map is, and how the ranges vary so much. It also explains why you tend to see a billion snipers and obeyas here as well. Ntec is still used heavily, but people will generally play "other" weapons for fun.

 

But most people are NOT trying to "win" in fightclub per say. Some are, but most, like me, just run around trying to get kills. This heavily lowers the need for people to run an ntec in fightclub. Especially when you run it all the time and find that it gets somewhat, stale, to play with.

 

This is where it's different from mission districts. In mission districts you ARE generally trying to win, the easiest and "fastest" way possible. Which is not only why people use N-TEC, NFAS, and Carbine heavily in financial district, but why it's almost needed to be done just to compete effecetively. Yes you tend to see people use other guns. but here's a question, the "best" and most "competitive" players, what guns do they use most? Star? no, far? no, pmg? maybe but probably not. Ntec? definitely, oscar or carbine? yup, hvr? likely, maybe an obeya, and most won't stoop to using an nfas, but they will if they are getting dominated. What's that mean? well, we already know which guns are the most powerful, easy to use ones. Just look at the "meta" and what people claim to be best.

 

Arguing that the star is easier in handling and thats why it should be worse, is a null argument. Every gun in APB should compete in pretty equal terms for its niche, we have seen this over and over and OVER again with every single weapon balance patch so far. They buffed the star, dmr, and half the other guns, and reduced the power level of the other half over the last few years in an attempt to make the game more fun to play with more varied weapon usage. They know that there will always be weapons that shine about the rest, but they don't want ONE weapon outperforming everything else. Saying "just buff the rest" is asinine, when the primary problem is X or Z weapon and can easily be remedied by nerfing that weapon.

 

This is ALSO why the STAR got a buff, because it plain sucked especially against ntecs. Now it functions similar to a FAR (thank god) but still most people won't use it, because why? NTEC will still more assuredly get the kill in a pinch, and still has better viabilty, and quite frankly, it's still what is needed to compete against other "competitive" players. If you aren't using it while using assault rifles, you're gimping yourself HARD. THAT is why it's getting nerfed. You shouldn't be FORCED to play a certain gun to be competitive.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Noob_Guardian

[PraiseTheSun 48]

Don't nerf the ntec as its a fine weapon. Just buff the other 'weaker' weapons. 

[vsb 6171]

1 hour ago, Tenginima said:

car gameplaying is not a thing

????? 

 

no wonder you talk about fc so much, you’re probably still r9 trainee with such little action district experience 

[Tenginima 74]

35 minutes ago, Noob_Guardian said:

Fightclub is NOT a  means for weapon balance. Just saying. In fightclub you can use whatever weapon works and go with it and "generally" do well if you're half decent and it's nothing like missions, but you will ALWAYS see a pattern with weapon usage. Not only that, but map matters for weapons as well. Hence why you generally see far more mid-long range weapons in baylan and waterfront, rather than asylum where everyone is using cqc to mid.

Fightclub is the most raw balanced form of APB as you can get when it comes to pure weapons balance due to the map structure primarily. Sure, is it perfect? Ofc not, but it is the closest thing that we have to an actual testing district that isn't purely terrible. Which is why I primarily used FC as an example to demonstrate that the NTEC is simply the symptom of a disease, that disease is the current state of APB (mostly mapwise). Simply nerfing the NTEC does not solve the issue, as the FAR will take its place and rifles will be even more dominant, and car gameplay will be even stronger. We treated the Symptom, not the Disease. This does not prove that the NTEC is op, it does however point to the fact that missions are simply require to many variables at once for you to factor in gun-wise, which makes it so that you need a jack of trades gun. People don't realize that the FAR already beats the NTEC fully auto, and is overall a "quicker" weapon in it's gameplay. However, the FAR is weaker at longer ranges, hence why the NTEC gets picked over the FAR when it comes to missions, not due to relative strength of the 2 guns, but due to the fact that you need to offer up some spray and pray ability, for range consistency.

35 minutes ago, Noob_Guardian said:

 

Example: See a lot of ntecs, joker carbines. Someone goes nfas, then more go, then everyones running cqc and nfas in asylum. // This is only true if 1 person does good enough with said gun. And even when that fact is ignored, in FC, for example the SWARM is a lot stronger in Asylum due to the fact that it is a great corner camping weapon, and it's small max bloom and predictable spray pattern makes it a beast against other weapons, being able to reach your practical TTK more then others are.

 

Now, why isn't fightclub a good representation? Because it's too situational. You don't see people using ntec too much in asylum because its a cqc based map, where cqc is just plain better. Ntecs don't ofc dominate this, but they do also do rather well. You're more than likely to facepalm into a ton of shotguns and oca's in the 15-30m ranges, rather than other rifles and weapons that the ntec easily dominates. Why? Because that's the map. And that's not something the ntec is "incredible" at doing... well, most rifles actually, which is why you generally don't see them as much in comparison to more easily sprayed cqc weapons. // The situational part is simply not true, in FC even in Abington, you can dominate with an OBIR, OBEYA even a Oblivion and Dogear, most things really. That's why I pushed the point that great players in the top of the Hierarchy of skill, will outperform others, no matter what. And those are the ones that should discuss balance. But you admiting to the map being one of the reason for the difference in gunplay is simply proving my point more then what I already did. I said very clearly, that one of the big reasons that the gunplay and meta was screwed in missions is because of a map design that was intended for a much longer TTK and slower gameplay overall. Again, it's an issue of game design and specifically car and map design, not weapon balance specifically.

 

Then we can look at baylan. Ntec does rather well here, and you tend to see a lot more of them, because of how open most of the map is, and how the ranges vary so much. It also explains why you tend to see a billion snipers and obeyas here as well. Ntec is still used heavily, but people will generally play "other" weapons for fun.  // This is true, but again, as mentioned above, you still prove my point as the NTEC isn't even an issue here, the NSSW far outpeforms it, all around. And yet again, just like Abington, the weapon selection that you can actually do well with without being super good is massively increased, due to the map design.

 

But most people are NOT trying to "win" in fightclub per say. Some are, but most, like me, just run around trying to get kills. This heavily lowers the need for people to run an ntec in fightclub. Especially when you run it all the time and find that it gets somewhat, stale, to play with.  // True, most people aren't trying win FC, most are going for kills, however, it still does not change my point around weapon balance. You could make the theoretical argument that people could weapon stack a mission loadout, or a loadout for that specific map, Abington. But even if that was the case, you'd still have a map, that favours around 6 - 10+ entrance zones per room on average, making it so that you could very well still maneuver around and use the map to your advantage to nullify their weapon advantages. But if we look at it realistically, it's true that a lot of people play it for fun, but the majority of these players are already using meta weapons and or tactics that, while intended to kill more then win, still fulfills the same result. Thus making it so that what you have is a situation where it is eerlie similar to missions in that regard, yet due to the Map construction mostly, you are still able to overcome this when you know the map. And not to mention that even when you factor in the player that play for fun, you still have a sizable chunk of players at least playing somewhat to "win" in the sense to be MVP and whatnot, thus making the comparison and relevance to missions still a thing to consider. 

 

This is where it's different from mission districts. In mission districts you ARE generally trying to win, the easiest and "fastest" way possible. Which is not only why people use N-TEC, NFAS, and Carbine heavily in financial district, but why it's almost needed to be done just to compete effecetively. Yes you tend to see people use other guns. but here's a question, the "best" and most "competitive" players, what guns do they use most? Star? no, far? no, pmg? maybe but probably not. Ntec? definitely, oscar or carbine? yup, hvr? likely, maybe an obeya, and most won't stoop to using an nfas, but they will if they are getting dominated. What's that mean? well, we already know which guns are the most powerful, easy to use ones. Just look at the "meta" and what people claim to be best.  // What's meta does not = to what's the best, it's simply what is the most useful and rounded weapons, I.E weapons and load outs that can handle the most situation on a per mission basis. Again, the SWARM is one of the best LMG's in the game on a LMG basis, however that isn't saying much as again, the NSSW is and always will be (unless missions are changed drastically) the best LMG for missions, despite the fact that the SWARM will outperform all other LMG's in LMG v LMG battles. The NSSW has this advantage due to the fact that the gun is simply worse at LMG v LMG battles, but better at overall usage. And the NSSW is far from OP. 

 

Arguing that the star is easier in handling and thats why it should be worse, is a null argument. Every gun in APB should compete in pretty equal terms for its niche, we have seen this over and over and OVER again with every single weapon balance patch so far. They buffed the star, dmr, and half the other guns, and reduced the power level of the other half over the last few years in an attempt to make the game more fun to play with more varied weapon usage. They know that there will always be weapons that shine about the rest, but they don't want ONE weapon outperforming everything else. Saying "just buff the rest" is asinine, when the primary problem is X or Z weapon and can easily be remedied by nerfing that weapon.  // Arguing that the STAR should be worse due to handling is a very good argument, CS does this, but it does this via it's economy system. A Galil will always be worse then an AK, but it is cheaper, hence why it is is worse. APB has no economy system to speak of gunplay-wise, hence the only thing that decides how good a gun "should be" is it's handling and weapon class. If a gun is easier to control, it should be worse, period. And saying "just buff the rest" is far from asinine, it requires more work, but it is the best way to do things, if you want to do them "correctly". Technically the NTEC and the STAR should switch places, since the star should be remade with a large magazine, and make it into more of a mid/CQC range assault riffle /lmg hybrid with a faster firerate without affecting bloom more then it already is, and keep the NTEC as the true jack of all trades gun.

 

This is ALSO why the STAR got a buff, because it plain sucked especially against ntecs. Now it functions similar to a FAR (thank god) but still most people won't use it, because why? NTEC will still more assuredly get the kill in a pinch, and still has better viabilty, and quite frankly, it's still what is needed to compete against other "competitive" players. If you aren't using it while using assault rifles, you're gimping yourself HARD. THAT is why it's getting nerfed. You shouldn't be FORCED to play a certain gun to be competitive. // It's true that you should never have to be forced to use a gun, that is why what you people need to understand is that, if you nerf the NTEC, the FAR and rifles will take it's place, and don't forget, the FAR isn't even close to being as easy to get your hands on as the NTEC. Which, ironically, would nerf the less well of players in the game, as one of the few competitive equalizers they have, will be gone, they will be forced to either use an inferior STAR, or use rifles, or cash up and or grind for tickets. Not a good solution. And that's the exact reason that so many people miss, is that if you nerf one thing it is in the name of "making more weapons available and usable" yet, it ironically doesn't achieve it, due to the fact of the core design flaws of APB's mission district structure, how this is so hard to grasp amazes me. And for the record, I use // because I dont know how to multi quote.

 

1 minute ago, Solamente said:

????? 

 

no wonder you talk about fc so much, you’re probably still r9 trainee with such little action district experience 

you're miss quoting me, I did say that due to car gameplaying (one of many reasons) the ntec is strong. 

2 minutes ago, Tenginima said:

And what is this problem? It is the core problem with APB's whole design. At least mission district-wise, because you see, why is the NTEC so dominant in missions? It is because of the fact that missions in themselves, favour a very specific meta, due to low TTK weapons, and little cover, that is Car gameplaying and long range rifles. APB was never designed with a quick TTK, and while raising it would be more work then it would be worth, the fact of the matter is that NTEC's and Rifles and their equivalents are so powerful because of the sole reason, that the map and certain game mechanics was never designed for quick TTK's. This is why the NTEC is chosen above so many alternatives, because when you have this meta, Car gameplaying, Rifles, Consumables (shields), Spotter, High burn fuel, Weapon Stacking, and low TTK. You end up in a situation where you either pick a really good gun for a specific situation, and eyhier do super well, or fuck all with it, or you use THE gun of choice, to be able to handle all situations, moderately well, you'll still lose to rifles at long range, you'll still lose to SMG's close, but you'll at least be able to put up "a fight" rather then nothing. 

It is cute that you are trying to defame me and put things that i didn't say, this is the quote of my first post, it is still there. And I have obviously not changed my mind in 2 days time. It was a nice try though.

[Noob_Guardian 417]

1 hour ago, Tenginima said:

 

"The situational part is simply not true, in FC even in Abington, you can dominate with an OBIR, OBEYA even a Oblivion and Dogear, most things really. That's why I pushed the point that great players in the top of the Hierarchy of skill, will outperform others, no matter what. And those are the ones that should discuss balance. But you admiting to the map being one of the reason for the difference in gunplay is simply proving my point more then what I already did. I said very clearly, that one of the big reasons that the gunplay and meta was screwed in missions is because of a map design that was intended for a much longer TTK and slower gameplay overall. Again, it's an issue of game design and specifically car and map design, not weapon balance specifically.

 

 

The thing you forget is that Abington has several open areas where you can place objective at and snipe enemies going to it, easily. That's why those weapons can do well "sometimes". You normally DO NOT see them at the highest in the leaderboard unless the people put the obj where those weapons do well.

 

Yes, but you also forget about ttk is that most assault rifles have HIGHER ttk's than the ntec, aside from the FAR which has slower bloom recovery, which automatically makes the NTEC BETTER, and needing to be brought into line "somehow" whether it be ttk, or ttk and bloom.

 

/ This is true, but again, as mentioned above, you still prove my point as the NTEC isn't even an issue here, the NSSW far outpeforms it, all around. And yet again, just like Abington, the weapon selection that you can actually do well with without being super good is massively increased, due to the map design.

 

If nssw far outperformed it realistically, you'd see far more NSSW's in most districts. But that also, is NOT the case. (I even own one and touch it far less than the Euryale or shaw)

 

 

 True, most people aren't trying win FC, most are going for kills, however, it still does not change my point around weapon balance. You could make the theoretical argument that people could weapon stack a mission loadout, or a loadout for that specific map, Abington. But even if that was the case, you'd still have a map, that favours around 6 - 10+ entrance zones per room on average, making it so that you could very well still maneuver around and use the map to your advantage to nullify their weapon advantages. But if we look at it realistically, it's true that a lot of people play it for fun, but the majority of these players are already using meta weapons and or tactics that, while intended to kill more then win, still fulfills the same result. Thus making it so that what you have is a situation where it is eerlie similar to missions in that regard, yet due to the Map construction mostly, you are still able to overcome this when you know the map. And not to mention that even when you factor in the player that play for fun, you still have a sizable chunk of players at least playing somewhat to "win" in the sense to be MVP and whatnot, thus making the comparison and relevance to missions still a thing to consider. 

 

You seem to forget that most locations when heavily defended in fightclub, isn't generally won though "skillful" gun play, but rather zerg rushes of 3-5 people in a door location at once and lots of grenades. Something that normally doesn't happen in mission districts. As in missions you generally try from 2-3 flanks to ambush the attackers/defenders and get a location advantage, while grenades are used, they are generally thrown at locations you "know" an enemy is at. Something that fightclub does not really offer to the same degree since you can generally just spam nades for kills due to player density.

 

 

 What's meta does not = to what's the best, it's simply what is the most useful and rounded weapons, I.E weapons and load outs that can handle the most situation on a per mission basis. Again, the SWARM is one of the best LMG's in the game on a LMG basis, however that isn't saying much as again, the NSSW is and always will be (unless missions are changed drastically) the best LMG for missions, despite the fact that the SWARM will outperform all other LMG's in LMG v LMG battles. The NSSW has this advantage due to the fact that the gun is simply worse at LMG v LMG battles, but better at overall usage. And the NSSW is far from OP. 

 

You do realize that something that is the most "useful" and the most "rounded" weapon for the most "situations" is not only meta but also tends to be the best. There's a reason why there's a very close correlation to meta and "best" and why everyone strives to do what's "meta" because it's perceived as what IS the best by the majority of the population.

 

I'd really disagree about the swarm being one of the best lmg's, let alone the nssw. Euryale is generally considered the "best" though NSSW is considered "decent", the Swarm is considered the worst by the general population.

 

 Arguing that the STAR should be worse due to handling is a very good argument, CS does this, but it does this via it's economy system. A Galil will always be worse then an AK, but it is cheaper, hence why it is is worse. APB has no economy system to speak of gunplay-wise, hence the only thing that decides how good a gun "should be" is it's handling and weapon class. If a gun is easier to control, it should be worse, period. And saying "just buff the rest" is far from asinine, it requires more work, but it is the best way to do things, if you want to do them "correctly". Technically the NTEC and the STAR should switch places, since the star should be remade with a large magazine, and make it into more of a mid/CQC range assault riffle /lmg hybrid with a faster firerate without affecting bloom more then it already is, and keep the NTEC as the true jack of all trades gun.

 

 Not really, we have a lot of weapons with very great handling, easy to use, and are great weapons. OCA for example great handling, great ease of use, same ttk as the NTEC. Atac great handling, easy to use, very little downsides, still better in a lot of situations than the star and same ttk as ntec. NFAS and shredder easy to use, not hard to hit ttk at all, extremely rewarding for low effort, and yet they aren't "worse" only "different". So that philosophy DOESN'T stand in APB. Then you have guns on the complete opposite, such as the IBSR? (I think thats the one) Every shot gets 2x worse recoil. 3 hit kill, and somewhat faster ttk, but terrible to use to the point noone will bother touching it, really it's recoil is unmanagable if you even try to hit it's ttk, and there's no reward for it, trash gun with terrible handling. Misery, terrible handling, still a meh weapon at best, same goes for Cobra and a number of other weapons.

 

Simply advocating "star should be worse because it's easy to use" doesn't stand up because most other weapons are just as easy if not easier and STILL perform better.  Star should have had the current bloom and a lower ttk (.7), or the ntec's ttk brought up to the STAR's, but even doing so for balancing sake is a "no-go" because NTEC is everyone's ez low effort win baby.

 

It's true that you should never have to be forced to use a gun, that is why what you people need to understand is that, if you nerf the NTEC, the FAR and rifles will take it's place, and don't forget, the FAR isn't even close to being as easy to get your hands on as the NTEC. Which, ironically, would nerf the less well of players in the game, as one of the few competitive equalizers they have, will be gone, they will be forced to either use an inferior STAR, or use rifles, or cash up and or grind for tickets. Not a good solution. And that's the exact reason that so many people miss, is that if you nerf one thing it is in the name of "making more weapons available and usable" yet, it ironically doesn't achieve it, due to the fact of the core design flaws of APB's mission district structure, how this is so hard to grasp amazes me. And for the record, I use // because I dont know how to multi quote.

 

Except FAR is better balanced than the ntec due to its slower recovery time, and while "rifles" may take its place, the reason rifles aren't used so much in the first place aside from waterfront is BECAUSE of how strong the NTEC is.

 

Yes, far is harder to get, luckily you can get one from joker store, the yearly event, and armas now. Yes, not a great solution, but the FAR handles like the STAR does, aside from less ammo, .7 ttk (balanced by its bloom recovery), and being more accurate, you don't notice much difference between the two. I do prefer FAR simply because the ttk and accuracy competes against the ntec much better than the star does. If need be i'd be fine with increasing the ttk of the far slightly, so that all "mid range" assault rifles share a rough ttk (.75), while the cqc based ones (condor?, atac) stay with the cqc .7.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by Noob_Guardian

[Fortune Runner 796]

4 hours ago, Tenginima said:

Fightclub is the most raw balanced form of APB as you can get when it comes to pure weapons balance

No it is not. there are weapons there can not be used to their full potential

[TheJellyGoo 343]

4 hours ago, Tenginima said:

Fightclub is the most raw balanced form of APB as you can get when it comes to pure weapons balance due to the map structure primarily. Sure, is it perfect? Ofc not, but it is the closest thing that we have to an actual testing district that isn't purely terrible. Which is why I primarily used FC as an example to demonstrate that the NTEC is simply the symptom of a disease, that disease is the current state of APB (mostly mapwise). Simply nerfing the NTEC does not solve the issue, as the FAR will take its place and rifles will be even more dominant, and car gameplay will be even stronger. We treated the Symptom, not the Disease. This does not prove that the NTEC is op, it does however point to the fact that missions are simply require to many variables at once for you to factor in gun-wise, which makes it so that you need a jack of trades gun. People don't realize that the FAR already beats the NTEC fully auto, and is overall a "quicker" weapon in it's gameplay. However, the FAR is weaker at longer ranges, hence why the NTEC gets picked over the FAR when it comes to missions, not due to relative strength of the 2 guns, but due to the fact that you need to offer up some spray and pray ability, for range consistency.

[...]

Your premise is wrong. FC is a novelty while action districts are the core of the game. So clearly the focus and attention when balancing weapons should be in relation to the latter.

Just to many variables that are out of proportion when taking FC into account compared to normal mission gameplay.

 

I do agree that map/cargameplay changes could totally change the dominant position of the N-TEC and I would probably prefer that way of balancing (and around it) however since that is currently not the case we have to proceed with what is the next best solution (least effort since LO just doesn't have the manpower/time). It's just really odd you keep providing the reasons why the N-TEC is chosen over other guns and what needs to be done to have those picked up more frequently but you just vehemently deny to directly call it OP/dominant/strongest.

Edited September 28, 2019 by TheJellyGoo

[Revoluzzer 274]

4 hours ago, Tenginima said:

Fightclub is the most raw balanced form of APB as you can get when it comes to pure weapons balance due to the map structure primarily.

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Baylan Shipping heavily favours long range weapons (rifleman, marksman, sniper). The Asylum heavily favours short range weapons (rifleman, pointman). Coincidentally the N-Tec does well in both, which might lead you to believe it's perfectly balanced and everything else is broken. But it's not the weapons that are broken, it's your argument.

[vsb 6171]

i can’t believe the fc argument is still going tbh, fc can never be the balancing method because it’s not the primary game mode 

 

its like trying to balance character health around riot lol

[Salvick 248]

9 hours ago, Revoluzzer said:

But it's not the weapons that are broken, it's your argument.

This is just accurate.

[N66 97]

Yea at this point I realized that L.O will fuck this part up real bad. I was anxious for balance, for reliability for shotguns without a buff, for buffing those unused weapons here and there which could bring a lot more fun.

Then I realized their idea is to nerf anything to match the shittiest weapons, and instead of having a meta strategy plan of using the right weapon for the right scenario, and learning skills, instead they prefer to just make a spam fest of bullets and rely on 50 / 50 chances of each player dying or killing, thus giving everyone "their dose of fun".

 

In my opinion Ntec-5 was the ideal target for the balance, Scout with jumpshooting, NHVR with damage over range (maybe even allowing long range QS), and other nades to get a slight buff if they're not matching up to low-yields, and I think the majority of weapons back this up as they're balanced to fit with this.

[PoshDoll 93]

wow another nerf? after it had been nerfed to the ground? and people again got used to the new pattern? cool beans.

[illgot 379]

23 hours ago, PraiseTheSun said:

Don't nerf the ntec as its a fine weapon. Just buff the other 'weaker' weapons. 

You can balance one weapon that is a little too good up close, amazing at medium range and decent at mid-long range or you can buff 45 other weapons around the Ntec, which sounds more reasonable.

Edited September 29, 2019 by illgot

[Tenginima 74]

On 9/28/2019 at 7:08 AM, Noob_Guardian said:

"The situational part is simply not true, in FC even in Abington, you can dominate with an OBIR, OBEYA even a Oblivion and Dogear, most things really. That's why I pushed the point that great players in the top of the Hierarchy of skill, will outperform others, no matter what. And those are the ones that should discuss balance. But you admiting to the map being one of the reason for the difference in gunplay is simply proving my point more then what I already did. I said very clearly, that one of the big reasons that the gunplay and meta was screwed in missions is because of a map design that was intended for a much longer TTK and slower gameplay overall. Again, it's an issue of game design and specifically car and map design, not weapon balance specifically.

 

 

The thing you forget is that Abington has several open areas where you can place objective at and snipe enemies going to it, easily. That's why those weapons can do well "sometimes". You normally DO NOT see them at the highest in the leaderboard unless the people put the obj where those weapons do well. // Not fully true, while ofc certain sniping spots will make weapons such as the OBIR and OBEYA stronger then normal, fact of the matter is that if you are good enough, you'd be able to do 5-1 without probs with a OBIR no matter the spot, due to it's insane 49 in one burst damage. And do consider those people that are on the leaderboard, you won't see Silver R100 with a meta setup OBIR roll over everyone else, even if the spot was optimized. Skill will, in most situations be the nr1 deciding factor what goes well and what doesn't, no matter the circumstance. 

 

Yes, but you also forget about ttk is that most assault rifles have HIGHER ttk's than the ntec, aside from the FAR which has slower bloom recovery, which automatically makes the NTEC BETTER, and needing to be brought into line "somehow" whether it be ttk, or ttk and bloom. // Sure, NTEC is better then the other assault rifles on paper, that's true. But even if we forget the fact that with the Misery with CJ3, you can literally 4 burst people before bloom becomes a problem, basically going "PA PA PA PA ... PA dead", and the fact that the FAR hilariously outplays an NTEC at spraying capability. Fact of the matter is this, the NTEC does not need a nerf, the other assault rifles needs buffs. People do make the counter argument that "that's too much work, or why work around 1 gun when we could just change that gun". Answer is simple, because even though nerfing the NTEC would be the easiest, it wouldn't be a full solution, nor would it be what is actually needed. Easier? Yes. What should be done? No. I've already gone over many times why this is the case, and won't do it again. I can however say exactly what LO needs to do in order to make other assault rifles in line. 

One of the biggest reason for the Dominance of the NTEC is because of the reasons i've already mentioned, but also the 2nd biggest fact that people overlook, availability. The FAR, Misery and that Aug which i forgot the name of, aswell as the Raptor, aren't even close to being readily available for the large public, that does not want to pay real money for those guns. So for them it's the Joker store that count, but unless you are 255R and or good at the game, grinding all those tickets for 3 slot FAR, Misery etc etc, will be very slow and a tedious process, even when you consider the newly added Ticket system. The FAR isn't as used because it isn't AS effective, but also because it's not AS available, that's the simple 2 reasons. Make them more available, and buffing them slightly is a start.  

 

On 9/28/2019 at 7:08 AM, Noob_Guardian said:

 

/ This is true, but again, as mentioned above, you still prove my point as the NTEC isn't even an issue here, the NSSW far outpeforms it, all around. And yet again, just like Abington, the weapon selection that you can actually do well with without being super good is massively increased, due to the map design.

 

If nssw far outperformed it realistically, you'd see far more NSSW's in most districts. But that also, is NOT the case. (I even own one and touch it far less than the Euryale or shaw) // I was talking about outplaying the NTEC in a NSSW vs NTEC battle at 30M+. And you're the one missing out, it's one of the strongest LMG's in the game.

 

 

 True, most people aren't trying win FC, most are going for kills, however, it still does not change my point around weapon balance. You could make the theoretical argument that people could weapon stack a mission loadout, or a loadout for that specific map, Abington. But even if that was the case, you'd still have a map, that favours around 6 - 10+ entrance zones per room on average, making it so that you could very well still maneuver around and use the map to your advantage to nullify their weapon advantages. But if we look at it realistically, it's true that a lot of people play it for fun, but the majority of these players are already using meta weapons and or tactics that, while intended to kill more then win, still fulfills the same result. Thus making it so that what you have is a situation where it is eerlie similar to missions in that regard, yet due to the Map construction mostly, you are still able to overcome this when you know the map. And not to mention that even when you factor in the player that play for fun, you still have a sizable chunk of players at least playing somewhat to "win" in the sense to be MVP and whatnot, thus making the comparison and relevance to missions still a thing to consider. 

 

You seem to forget that most locations when heavily defended in fightclub, isn't generally won though "skillful" gun play, but rather zerg rushes of 3-5 people in a door location at once and lots of grenades. Something that normally doesn't happen in mission districts. As in missions you generally try from 2-3 flanks to ambush the attackers/defenders and get a location advantage, while grenades are used, they are generally thrown at locations you "know" an enemy is at. Something that fightclub does not really offer to the same degree since you can generally just spam nades for kills due to player density. // Only half true, sure, it isn't won through coordinated teamwork, but again, your individual skill does make the difference, there's a reason why good players can pull Blitz 4's out of their patootie without a problem due to the fact that those 3 - 5 idiots, are simply running in like morons, like lamb for slaughter, if you're even half decent, you'd be able to pull at the minimum a Blitz 2 from this, it's extremely easy to do. The nade part is also, only half true, while it is easier to get random grenade kills is true, it's a fallacy ro believe that you can't "know" where to throw grenades and at which angles, which is essentially the same for missions, the likelihood of getting a kill however is increased due to the fact that as you mentioned, higher player density. Again, if you know the map, you know where to "spam" grenades, there's a big difference on the 3-5 players grouping up, throwing 5+ nades at the same door without effect, contrary to the man running a little bit further and bounces a grenade into a room rather then just the door frame.

 

 

 What's meta does not = to what's the best, it's simply what is the most useful and rounded weapons, I.E weapons and load outs that can handle the most situation on a per mission basis. Again, the SWARM is one of the best LMG's in the game on a LMG basis, however that isn't saying much as again, the NSSW is and always will be (unless missions are changed drastically) the best LMG for missions, despite the fact that the SWARM will outperform all other LMG's in LMG v LMG battles. The NSSW has this advantage due to the fact that the gun is simply worse at LMG v LMG battles, but better at overall usage. And the NSSW is far from OP. 

 

You do realize that something that is the most "useful" and the most "rounded" weapon for the most "situations" is not only meta but also tends to be the best. There's a reason why there's a very close correlation to meta and "best" and why everyone strives to do what's "meta" because it's perceived as what IS the best by the majority of the population. // Exactly, "perceived". Again, we can even take missions for this example, a SWARM will always be better then every other LMG in the game except for the AMG and NSSW, but in the situations where the SWARM shines, ANTI car and when you are in a defend stage, you are almost impossible to outgun, as the small max bloom, predictable recoil pattern, and using HS3 on that gun, makes it into a MID range fully auto fully hitting LMG, you'd be suprised how effective it is. Why aren't more people using it? Because it requires more brain power then just again, reverting to an NTEC, most "common" and most "used" again, does not = to best, this is a fallacy. 

 

I'd really disagree about the swarm being one of the best lmg's, let alone the nssw. Euryale is generally considered the "best" though NSSW is considered "decent", the Swarm is considered the worst by the general population. I've already went through this above, but I might as well add a tierlist AMG, SWARM, NSSW, RABID, SHAW, ALIG. And "general" population, doesn't say anything, because even a silver that barely can track people above 10%, will count into the "general" population, thus making that aspect of the argument, invalid. 

 

 Arguing that the STAR should be worse due to handling is a very good argument, CS does this, but it does this via it's economy system. A Galil will always be worse then an AK, but it is cheaper, hence why it is is worse. APB has no economy system to speak of gunplay-wise, hence the only thing that decides how good a gun "should be" is it's handling and weapon class. If a gun is easier to control, it should be worse, period. And saying "just buff the rest" is far from asinine, it requires more work, but it is the best way to do things, if you want to do them "correctly". Technically the NTEC and the STAR should switch places, since the star should be remade with a large magazine, and make it into more of a mid/CQC range assault riffle /lmg hybrid with a faster firerate without affecting bloom more then it already is, and keep the NTEC as the true jack of all trades gun.

 

 Not really, we have a lot of weapons with very great handling, easy to use, and are great weapons. OCA for example great handling, great ease of use, same ttk as the NTEC. Atac great handling, easy to use, very little downsides, still better in a lot of situations than the star and same ttk as ntec. NFAS and shredder easy to use, not hard to hit ttk at all, extremely rewarding for low effort, and yet they aren't "worse" only "different". So that philosophy DOESN'T stand in APB. Then you have guns on the complete opposite, such as the IBSR? (I think thats the one) Every shot gets 2x worse recoil. 3 hit kill, and somewhat faster ttk, but terrible to use to the point noone will bother touching it, really it's recoil is unmanagable if you even try to hit it's ttk, and there's no reward for it, trash gun with terrible handling. Misery, terrible handling, still a meh weapon at best, same goes for Cobra and a number of other weapons. // The philosophy still stands for this 1 reason, I never said APB's gun balance is perfect, and as a matter of fact, i've always been the man saying that, we need more buffs, and less nerfs. OCA is easy to use, no doubt about it, but keep in mind it got buffed without reason, so when it comes back to it's regular state, before the ninja buff, it will all be fine. I agree that the ATAC is better then the STAR, hence why I suggest buffing the STAR, and make it a bit more interesting to handle. What I am saying is this, since there is no economy, the only way to balance weapon balance is via handling, since a lot of underpowered weapons are underperforming due to beeing high-risk low-reward weapons, which should be changed imo. I am simply saying that if you are going to intentionally design a weapon to be better then X Y Z, then you need to make it more difficult to handle, that's all. Rayscaling should be removed on all shotguns, good idea on paper, terrible practical application, as it makes IR3 far to strong, on guns such as the NFAS, turning it from a 5m doom cannon, into a 20m Buckshot slayer. SBSR is underpowered. Misery you are wrong with, it's one of the best assault rifles in the game, because you can 4 burst people, for obvious reasons, this is hard to pull of all the time, thus making it into an actual high-risk high-reward weapon.  Cobra is underpowered. As I said, the philosophy works because unless apb introduces an economy system to the weapons a kin to CS, then the only way to make intentionally better and worse weapons is via handling, however, G1 botched this, due to the fact that the majority of high-risk weapons, are bad, for the wrong reasons. Not the low-risk weapons overperforming, hence, why weapons needs buffs, not nerfs.

 

Simply advocating "star should be worse because it's easy to use" doesn't stand up because most other weapons are just as easy if not easier and STILL perform better.  Star should have had the current bloom and a lower ttk (.7), or the ntec's ttk brought up to the STAR's, but even doing so for balancing sake is a "no-go" because NTEC is everyone's ez low effort win baby. // Already went through this in my reply above.

 

It's true that you should never have to be forced to use a gun, that is why what you people need to understand is that, if you nerf the NTEC, the FAR and rifles will take it's place, and don't forget, the FAR isn't even close to being as easy to get your hands on as the NTEC. Which, ironically, would nerf the less well of players in the game, as one of the few competitive equalizers they have, will be gone, they will be forced to either use an inferior STAR, or use rifles, or cash up and or grind for tickets. Not a good solution. And that's the exact reason that so many people miss, is that if you nerf one thing it is in the name of "making more weapons available and usable" yet, it ironically doesn't achieve it, due to the fact of the core design flaws of APB's mission district structure, how this is so hard to grasp amazes me. And for the record, I use // because I dont know how to multi quote.

 

Except FAR is better balanced than the ntec due to its slower recovery time, and while "rifles" may take its place, the reason rifles aren't used so much in the first place aside from waterfront is BECAUSE of how strong the NTEC is. // You clearly haven't been paying attention, OBIR and OBEYA is strong no matter the district, making this only slightly more true for waterfront, rather then an absolute fact. FAR is well balanced IMO, however so is the NTEC, what's the problem then? FAR isn't as well rounded, it's more suited towards CQC and anti Assault Rifle engagements. Again, proving that, it's the lack of cover and map design that is the problem in missions is the problem, not just 1 gun.

 

Yes, far is harder to get, luckily you can get one from joker store, the yearly event, and armas now. Yes, not a great solution, but the FAR handles like the STAR does, aside from less ammo, .7 ttk (balanced by its bloom recovery), and being more accurate, you don't notice much difference between the two. I do prefer FAR simply because the ttk and accuracy competes against the ntec much better than the star does. If need be i'd be fine with increasing the ttk of the far slightly, so that all "mid range" assault rifles share a rough ttk (.75), while the cqc based ones (condor?, atac) stay with the cqc .7. // Went through this above.

 

 

 

On 9/28/2019 at 9:35 AM, Fortune Runner said:

No it is not. there are weapons there can not be used to their full potential

Name 1

On 9/28/2019 at 9:51 AM, TheJellyGoo said:

Your premise is wrong. FC is a novelty while action districts are the core of the game. So clearly the focus and attention when balancing weapons should be in relation to the latter.

Just to many variables that are out of proportion when taking FC into account compared to normal mission gameplay.

 

I do agree that map/cargameplay changes could totally change the dominant position of the N-TEC and I would probably prefer that way of balancing (and around it) however since that is currently not the case we have to proceed with what is the next best solution (least effort since LO just doesn't have the manpower/time). It's just really odd you keep providing the reasons why the N-TEC is chosen over other guns and what needs to be done to have those picked up more frequently but you just vehemently deny to directly call it OP/dominant/strongest.

The core of an older game, with slower TTK and overall gameplay. FC is for the "new APB", hence why it works better there, the proof is in the pudding. 

 

I deny it being OP, as even you agree with my logic, the gun is not the problem the gun is the Symptom of the Disease that is missions. I keep on giving reasons to prove my point that it's the current "core" (aka missions" of APB that is balanced improperly, and that more pressing issues should be pursued instead, such as nerfing car gameplaying. 

 

The other reason why the NTEC should remain untouched, they touch it, chances are it won't be changed back. So even when you consider that "it's currently not the case", it still doesn't change the fact that nerfing the NTEC is technically wrong, as it's simply lazy. 

[Tenginima 74]

On 9/28/2019 at 10:12 AM, Revoluzzer said:

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Baylan Shipping heavily favours long range weapons (rifleman, marksman, sniper). The Asylum heavily favours short range weapons (rifleman, pointman). Coincidentally the N-Tec does well in both, which might lead you to believe it's perfectly balanced and everything else is broken. But it's not the weapons that are broken, it's your argument.

My argument just as my logic is flawless in this instance. It is the most balanced weapon, as both those maps prove that, missions prove this, everything points to this. I've stated all the reasons plenty of times before but let me ask you this then, why is it so. that in the top hierachy of players, in terms of skill. They all (except me) think that the OBIR is stronger then the NTEC? It's pretty simple really, the OBIR is stronger then the NTEC, once you get good with it. Because of reverse QSing, and because of it's massive burst damage. I disagree that it is OP, but what you will see in the case of APB, is that everyone will flood the NTEC bandwagon and hate on it, while those that are enlightened, are those that truly understand what beats it.

 

You can look at it like this, NTEC = Easy, can do most things.

 

OBIR = Harder (not hard, but harder then the NTEC), can do most things, even slighlty better then the NTEC, if you are good enough.

 

Besides, what's your proof then? you say that my way of looking at it makes it so that everything else is broken while the ntec is the epitome of balance. What do you say then? Give me 1 reason, too why the NTEC is actually OP, and why you think so. I can assure you, the reason why it seems OP to you is a lack of skill. But, I still want to hear it.

On 9/28/2019 at 1:07 PM, Solamente said:

i can’t believe the fc argument is still going tbh, fc can never be the balancing method because it’s not the primary game mode 

 

its like trying to balance character health around riot lol

I can't belive you'd be so sad enough to actually take one of my quotes, edit it, and then post it to make me look like an idiot, that is the proof that you lost the argument.

18 hours ago, illgot said:

You can balance one weapon that is a little too good up close, amazing at medium range and decent at mid-long range or you can buff 45 other weapons around the Ntec, which sounds more reasonable.

It has nothing to do with reason, it has to do with what is factually correct, and what's lazy. Nerfing the NTEC is the lazy way to do it.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Tenginima

[Weeb TheEpicGuyV2 269]

Who's ready to see what gets accepted for the ntec this Tuesday? I know I am

 

 

 

 

I need me a good laugh

[Fortune Runner 796]

42 minutes ago, Tenginima said:

Name 1

they already named pleanty

please reread

[LilyRain 674]

19 minutes ago, Weeb TheEpicGuyV2 said:

Who's ready to see what gets accepted for the ntec this Tuesday? I know I am

 

 

 

 

I need me a good laugh

If they push forward district B's N-tec, I'll have you arrested again. I hold you responsible for underperforming weekly-polls