How about removing Abandonmission

[Hexerin 1140]

7 hours ago, Lily Rain said:

shutting APB down and restarting it.

Talk about an inferior method to removing yourself from a mission. Just toss a few grenades at your feet, avoid the game's launch time that makes the heat death of the universe seem like it's coming tomorrow.

7 hours ago, Me Loco said:

The better option would be if the mission wouldn't start if there were no opponents

Been saying the same for years. Unopposed missions are one of the core issues with the game's horrifyingly bad "matchmaking". Get a significant portion of the people in a district in unopposed missions, makes it that much harder for matches to be set up in a balanced state.

[valdas001 22]

How about reverting bounty changes? Now its totaly BS. Now after mission can only grief because u can hunt bounty. And btw if u get opposition abadonmission not works....

Edited February 4, 2020 by valdas001

[Ilyas 15]

Abandon mission is usefull also so you dont be forced to play with a a55hole teammates. If your teammate wants to make you lose, he can just run around the district and not go AFK so he cant get kicked (it happend to me several times with max ranks).

Rather than that, try to to improve matchmaking for new players. But eventually, this game is a harsh one , there are alot of factors that can put you in disadavantage. You can either quit or spend hundreds of hours to learn playing in disadvantage.

 

[LilyRain 671]

5 hours ago, Hexerin said:

Talk about an inferior method to removing yourself from a mission. Just toss a few grenades at your feet, avoid the game's launch time that makes the heat death of the universe seem like it's coming tomorrow.

Omg, you are a genius! Having the system kick the player for suicide is the ultimate method! Mhmm, mhmm!!

 

It would also help to know internally how many times you were reported for de-threating and/or refusing to play missions......... You are probably a major Contributor as to why LO is yet to catch up with reports and tickets..

 

Get the ♥♣♦♠ outta here with your "inferior" nonsense.

[Mitne 724]

8 hours ago, Hexerin said:

Talk about an inferior method to removing yourself from a mission. Just toss a few grenades at your feet, avoid the game's launch time that makes the heat death of the universe seem like it's coming tomorrow.

Why i'm not suprised you got methods to avoid play in your thumb?

8 hours ago, Hexerin said:

Been saying the same for years. Unopposed missions are one of the core issues with the game's horrifyingly bad "matchmaking". Get a significant portion of the people in a district in unopposed missions, makes it that much harder for matches to be set up in a balanced state.

How exactly? Opposite would be no matches, in some cases waiting for even up to hour - in turn everybody leaving district or game (for day or worse).

I'm not exactly sure you grasp possible consequences.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Mitne

[Hexerin 1140]

6 minutes ago, Mitne said:

How exactly?

Players in unopposed missions cannot be matched against players in unopposed missions. Only idle players can be matched in as opposition to players in unopposed matches. It's also very easy for there to be multiple unopposed missions active at any given time, due to the system apparently favoring them if the available idle player pool can't match up similar threat levels fast enough.

 

Little Orbit needs to remove unopposed missions, and force matches to only start when there's enough players to begin at minimum a 2v2 match (so that groups consisting of two players aren't screwed over, of course). Ideally, any mission that results in a VIP finale won't start unless the matchmaker can put together a full 4v4 as well.

[Mitne 724]

5 minutes ago, Hexerin said:

Players in unopposed missions cannot be matched against players in unopposed missions. Only idle players can be matched in as opposition to players in unopposed matches. It's also very easy for there to be multiple unopposed missions active at any given time, due to the system apparently favoring them if the available idle player pool can't match up similar threat levels fast enough.

 

Little Orbit needs to remove unopposed missions, and force matches to only start when there's enough players to begin at minimum a 2v2 match (so that groups consisting of two players aren't screwed over, of course). Ideally, any mission that results in a VIP finale won't start unless the matchmaker can put together a full 4v4 as well.

Other side. Players can remain unopposed for what... minutes? half hour? hours? All depends of make-up of district. I don't think Citadel gonna suffer (yet) of that but Jericho got constant low pop. Now imagine - pressing ready, waiting for mission HOUR to be played and then maybe be thrown as backup in last seconds. All because you didn't fit in population scheme of game.

Nah, the whole issue you presented is with how missions are handled, not how system works. Wouldn't mind being kicked out of unopposed mission to opposed one if it would smoothen out game. I would MIND though waiting already shitton of time on low pop districts during which I wouldn't have anything to do.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Mitne

[Hexerin 1140]

3 minutes ago, Mitne said:

pressing ready, waiting for mission HOUR

Literally would never happen with the changes I described. Meanwhile, that can happen now, because of unopposed missions gimping the matchmaker.

[Mitne 724]

...

1 minute ago, Hexerin said:

Meanwhile, that can happen now

Here. I also love to take everything out of overall context of response.

 

Once again APB playerbase think they gonna heal the world by killing next features. Nah, thanks.

[Kitty Yekaterina 111]

19 hours ago, Mitne said:

You use /report for that. . . But that depends who is "toxic" imbecile to you.

You are genius, how did I not think of that! 

Topic is abandoning a mission.

Report button wont save me from PLAYING a mission with a player who always bullied me, harassed me and was toxic to me with sabotaging my mission on purpose because he hates me for only his known reasons.  /ABANDONMISSION  however will save me from him! That is if i am quick enough before we got cop opponents. 

That is why we do need /abandonmission! 

Not only do we need that,  if I was LO i would even put a system similar to  requesting leadership of a team by democratic voting of abandoning mission with the opponents. 

If we get "pro"  rank 20's  who go 30 kills 0 deaths, because kids are bored and they cheat in dead game without consequences or active admins with power of ban on sight, it would be nice in that case to abandon a mission and stop wasting our time. In my opinion it would even be a sort of counter measure for hackers / cheaters, because if every opposition would quit to them, they would pretty much either have to leave a game, or eventually stop cheating or hacking.  But that idea is just an utopia sadly. 

[Jilleroo 349]

1 hour ago, Hexerin said:

Little Orbit needs to remove unopposed missions, and force matches to only start when there's enough players to begin at minimum a 2v2 match (so that groups consisting of two players aren't screwed over, of course). Ideally, any mission that results in a VIP finale won't start unless the matchmaker can put together a full 4v4 as well.

F**k the gods, I agree with Hex.

 

The amount of rampant mission skipping until the team gets defense is super gross. Very good players constantly reentering matchmaking until they're the ones defending slows down the system and makes it frustrating to ALWAYS be on offense if you don't do this.

 

Abandoning missions is fine in itself, but with how trash the matchmaking is in this game (for many reasons) and how intrinsically imbalanced the missions are by themselves are why this is a problem.

[Flaws 1033]

No. Definitively not. AT LEAST not until

1. A proper matchmaking is introduced with phasing introduced.
2. Missions get reworked and final stages such as VIP, Bomb and Truck Hold get rebalanced or removed entirely.

And honestly even then the option should remain in the game all the same. Keeping high golds in a team with silvers and bronzes won't make them win any more against full premades with comms than they already do exactly due to the fact that those a) are new players and b) have no comms with said high golds to begin with. Also, having high golds in your team increases your chance of getting high golds as opp drastically so it's a lose lose for everyone if they stay in those missions.

 

Besides, there are many other reasons why one might want to abandon a mission. For example, you shouldn't ever be forced to play in a team with someone you don't want to. Griefers? Trolls? Toxic players? It's one of the very few things that make this game semi-tolerable to play.

 

Bad idea, bad idea overall. 

Edited February 4, 2020 by Flaws

[watsoNN 27]

22 hours ago, Y2Venom said:

my point exaclt. Remove the abandonmission, make it compulsary to team with lower levels, stop golds being lazy and steam rolling the opposition.

How do you know if the player is toxic if you have not teamed with him. I will create a new player today and start playing, i will screenshot every game and post it here. We will  see where the toxicity falls.

 

We wouldn't have this issue if you still had your bronze districts... lmao.

 

[CookiePuss 5377]

25 minutes ago, Evagelyne said:

Very good players constantly reentering matchmaking until they're the ones defending

lol who tf even does this?

I don't know a single player that does this.

 

Aside from abandoning VIP or Creme de la Crime (because they are just no fun missions), or abandoning missions with bronzies (because who wants to be involved in a mission where you pick on the disabled), I don't know anyone who is only willing to play defense. That's just silly.

[zekter 11]

Just as others said before, '/abandonmission' CAN NOT be removed in the current game's state. There's no matchmaking system in this game, and I don't believe anyone who says otherwise. I can't even count how many times I got queue'd with silver/bronze players, newcomers or oldtimers who doesn't have the time or will to play the game at their 100%, against gold 255 4-man tryharding.

 

Forcing a gold player to play with those in their team is just mean. First, you fix the matchmaking by creating other elo divisions or just making a system that actually queues decent players vs decent players. Only then you can start thing of removing the command and you still have to considerate bad missions being reworked.

[CookiePuss 5377]

6 minutes ago, displacement said:

Just as others said before, '/abandonmission' CAN NOT be removed in the current game's state. There's no matchmaking system in this game, and I don't believe anyone who says otherwise. I can't even count how many times I got queue'd with silver/bronze players, newcomers or oldtimers who doesn't have the time or will to play the game at their 100%, against gold 255 4-man tryharding.

 

Forcing a gold player to play with those in their team is just mean. First, you fix the matchmaking by creating other elo divisions or just making a system that actually queues decent players vs decent players. Only then you can start thing of removing the command and you still have to considerate bad missions being reworked.

ugh where to start...

 

There is matchmaking.

Matchmaking works as intended.

Adding 1 or 100 more threat colors or categories will have no impact in your in game experience.

 

The problem with matchmaking is the number of players matchmaking has to pick from when trying to find you opp.

 

40 players max.

Subtract those already in missions.

Subtract those in group sizes too large for matchmaking to pair.

Subtract those also waiting for opp while unopposed in a mission.

 

This is the problem with matchmaking.

 

Should we ever get matchmaking across the entire player base and not just within a district, you should see some improvement. APB would still have a tiny overall player base to choose from compared to popular games, but it'd at least be better than the 40 we have now.

[Jilleroo 349]

18 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

I don't know anyone who is only willing to play defense. That's just silly.

It's not that they refuse to play offense, they just prefer having an easier time on defense.

 

Because this game had no concept of being fair when the missions were designed, offense is almost always harder and there's no half-time/alternating roles to be found in the current format except maybe one or two missions(?), but I can't remember. And even then, it's only like, one stage that switches.

3 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

Adding 1 or 100 more threat colors or categories will have no impact in your in game experience.

This is true, but I would just like to add that I would like some actual divisions to be setup instead of this stupid "GOLD, WOW!" that blankets such a wide variety of skill levels that it's effectively rendered useless because it doesn't tell you a god damn thing.

[CookiePuss 5377]

10 minutes ago, Evagelyne said:

 offense is almost always harder

On this we agree.

[Jilleroo 349]

Just now, CookiePuss said:

On this we agree.

I'm under the impression your post was of a more impressive caliber, but you hesitated; cold feet?

 

Also, out of curiosity, what's your opinion on more detailed ranks so a player can truly know where they stand within a game's ranking list?

[CookiePuss 5377]

Just now, EvaPooh said:

I'm under the impression your post was of a more impressive caliber, but you hesitated; cold feet?

 

Also, out of curiosity, what's your opinion on more detailed ranks so a player can truly know where they stand within a game's ranking list?

Im trying to behave a bit better on the forums, so Instead of reiterating the same disagreements over and over, I try to focus on something on which we agree.

 

Im a proponent of visible numeric values for threat. Ive nothing against overall categorization (or even adding to our current divisions), but Id love to be able to see my actual rating. Something like SR in Overwatch to use a common example. I feel like it would make it easier to track your progress or lack thereof. As is you only get visual confirmation of change when you switch between colors, which for some players, is never.

[Lord Cashpoint 269]

51 minutes ago, EvaPooh said:

Also, out of curiosity, what's your opinion on more detailed ranks so a player can truly know where they stand within a game's ranking list?

I'm not them, but I can't see how having a detailed breakdown of your rank would be anything other than pointless.

 

As much as I like this game, the missions don't resemble anything close to a "fair environment". It seems silly to individually rank players against each other when you can lose a mission because a random player rammed you with a dump truck, or you got an extremely unfavourable location for an attack objective. Just the fact that missions are attack/defend without switching sides at the end almost invalidate the current threat system, let alone a more granular one.

 

This is to say nothing of how the current scoring system works - with you getting more points for dying before killing a player, or the disproportionate amount of points Blitzkrieg medals give (These are just two of a litany of issues with the point system in missions).

 

I agree that the way ranks are skewed right now is probably inadequate. Gold is too easy to achieve, green is an unnecessary division, etc. These need changes, but overall I can't see a more granular ranking system achieving anything other than tempting players to engage in win-at-all-costs behaviour, which would likely be a detriment to the game (If anyone remembers the Clan competition from years ago which ranked clans by number of mission wins, it produced some of the most unbearable matches).

Edited February 4, 2020 by Lord Cashpoint

[Fortune Runner 796]

On 2/3/2020 at 7:00 AM, Y2Venom said:

Every time i try to play, i am constantly seeing high level golds abandonmission when they have a new player. Essentially leaving pre made teams communicating against ungrouped players not communicating. Players getting trounced time after time. Players leave and play another game. This is not a new issue, its been going on for years. What i mean by this, experienced players refusing to team with new players.

 

On 2/3/2020 at 7:09 AM, Solamente said:

not every gold wants to babysit during their play session, and not every gold is capable of babysitting

 

/abandonmission already only works on unopposed missions, i’d rather orbit cracked down even harder on people who afk opposed missions instead

 

Current threat districts make this happen.

I do not believe I have had any golds stay , and I have seen golds leave almost always.

I believe there was  only one gold the past couple of times I played recently that stayed.

 

All of this goes away and back to normal when threat segregated districts are back , so no need to change abandon mission

but it would be nice if golds weren't being so testy and would play and teach.

[VickyFox 353]

Another thread about a game mechanic there to help, yet the social issues undermine their intended purpose to the point of other players requested such mechanics to be removed.

 

A balance is need between allowing players to have the freedom to do as they like but in a way that is not going to disrupt other's game play.

 

Everyone can agree that Threats and Matchmaking are broken but the social issue exasperates the game's faults.

 

"A fish rots from the head down", Little Orbit has to make a stance to set standards for the community.

Edited February 4, 2020 by VickyFox

[vsb 6171]

3 hours ago, Kitty Yekaterina said:

If we get "pro"  rank 20's  who go 30 kills 0 deaths, because kids are bored and they cheat in dead game without consequences or active admins with power of ban on sight, it would be nice in that case to abandon a mission and stop wasting our time. In my opinion it would even be a sort of counter measure for hackers / cheaters, because if every opposition would quit to them, they would pretty much either have to leave a game, or eventually stop cheating or hacking.  But that idea is just an utopia

this would just lead to a lot of people quitting missions against anyone better than them, regardless of if they’re cheating or not 

[Kitty Yekaterina 111]

4 minutes ago, Solamente said:

this would just lead to a lot of people quitting missions against anyone better than them, regardless of if they’re cheating or not 

Like i said utopia, and i KNEW, that someone will instantly say that.  Everything to defend hackers...everything. 

That is why i said democratic vote! If there is 6 ppl in a team, 5 of us would have to choose quit.

Either way none of this will ever happen so its pointless to discuss it.