Jump to content
Y2Venom

How about removing Abandonmission

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, VickyFox said:

Again that's normal with any community or society.

At times even disgreeing to disagree!

I disagree. Sometimes we agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kitty Yekaterina said:

My suggestion is still on point.  I am not programmer to know the best way for solution but i can give an idea.  

Your one liners aside, provocation never poke anything, because you never provide any "smarter" solution or suggestion, you only know to spit over everybody's elses.  Thats only thing you are good at. 

Aside of abandonmission there should be abandonmission with opp as well in some distant future, if there is one for APB.  You are obviously einstein so enlight us the better way to do it. 

why are you having so much trouble with this?

 

i do not have a suggestion, my only input is that i disagree with your suggestion to expand /abandonmission to allow players to quit opposed missions because it will be bad for overall gameplay

 

 

4 hours ago, Kitty Yekaterina said:

Every single system has potential abuse in it, and will be abused.  You didnt discover America with it.  If we look your way, everything should be cancelled then, since everything can be abused.

i have no idea what america has to do with anything 

 

you’re intentionally making this a black and white issue for some reason, when it’s clearly not 

 

there’s a very delicate balance between mitigating cheaters and harming legitimate player experience

 

for instance, little orbit could force all player movement server side, similar to how vehicles function

would this prevent speedhackers? yes (probably)

but it would also introduce a noticeable delay to every single player action, making  legitimate gameplay feel clunky and awful, therefore its a bad idea even tho it would mitigate cheating 

 

in this case, would allowing players to quit opposed missions affect cheaters? yes

 

but issue number 1 is that players in general are not good at determining who is cheating and who is not - there are probably hundreds if not thousands of hackusations every day, these hackusations (hopefully this is obvious) are not all correct

so now if players are allowed and encouraged to bar people they think cheat from playing by quitting missions, then it’s inevitable that there will be players who are falsely accused of cheating and barred from playing 

 

issue number 2 is that players will abuse everything - your suggestion was meant to allow people to quit opposed missions against cheaters but in order to do so it will also allow people to quit missions against anyone for any reason, and players will take advantage of that

 

dont like the objective location? quit

dont like teammates? quit

dont like opp? quit

got arrested? quit

starting to lose? quit

 

 

there are already players who do this by disconnecting to lobby or restarting apb, making it easier will only allow the issue to become more and more widespread

 

a system meant to deter cheaters instead being used to harm legitimate players’ game experience is generally a bad thing in my opinion 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally I have never abandoned a mission just simply because I have a trainer for a partner typically if I abandon its because the mission usually bugs out, or I see the current group compliment will not get op with me in their group since I am 255 Gold generally.

 

Players can be toxic, but this can be fixed by the community as a whole if we are all working to make that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2020 at 11:11 AM, CookiePuss said:

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.

You're right, my post lacked information and yours is actually able to explain it to me. Anyways, I still feel like green, bronze, silver and isn't enough. It probably won't have any impact in the actual games state, but try to see my point. When say divisions I don't limit it to having gold 1 - 10, I mean actual points. Points that says where you're at; so this can be used to balance the matches with the total rating points the team have; also, at the same time, make the player aware of how many points he has, how many he won in that match, how many left to derank or to rank up, etc. It is hard to explain though, I don' t have enough vocabulary to go in-depth but try to see Overwatch as an example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2/5/2020 at 4:08 PM, CookiePuss said:

On the one hand, people complain about Golds stomping on lower threat players.

On the other hand, golds get shit talked for abandoning missions with lower threat players.

 

Reminder that the community agrees on nothing.

This is a problem if u are high silver playing in silver ditrict when 80% of the teamates(golds) do /abandonmission when they are matched in a mission with u making u have to wait a lot of time to play a decent mission or forcing u to play A LOT of not enjoyable 1 vs 1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2020 at 5:08 PM, CookiePuss said:

On the one hand, people complain about Golds stomping on lower threat players.

On the other hand, golds get shit talked for abandoning missions with lower threat players.

Neither of those is exclusive to the other.

What exactly is your point?

You can be gold stomping on low rank AND abandoning mission when matched with lower rank in the same time. That is what you are actually going to see most of the time, in fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Implying we wont just d/c our internet and reconnect thru the start taskbar.

This takes the cake, yall are some lost cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sometimes I accidentally ready because of habit before I invite my teammates to group. Abandonmission allows us to group up before we have opposition.  Or if we have a friend come on late we can leave mission and add them to get a new mission.  

 

In the grand scheme of things, there are much more pressing things to have them work on then removing the /abandonmission feature....

On 2/5/2020 at 10:08 AM, CookiePuss said:

On the one hand, people complain about Golds stomping on lower threat players.

On the other hand, golds get shit talked for abandoning missions with lower threat players.

 

Reminder that the community agrees on nothing.

Well the reality is there will be golds vs lower threats because of server population.  There isn't a healthy population in any threat group to sustain a district of that color with decent district population.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Neither of those is exclusive to the other.

What exactly is your point?

You can be gold stomping on low rank AND abandoning mission when matched with lower rank in the same time. That is what you are actually going to see most of the time, in fact. 

Which do you expect makes it more likely for a gold player to get lower threat opp, by grouping with bronze and silver teammates? Or by playing with gold teammates?

Because if you don't want them stomping lower threat players, don't yell at them for not playing with lower threat players.

Edited by CookiePuss
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Which do you expect makes it more likely for a gold player to get lower threat opp, by grouping with bronze and silver teammates? Or by playing with gold teammates?

Because if you don't want them stomping lower threat players, don't yell at them for not playing with lower threat players.

Its not like they dont know how to lower their threat.   Im not yelling at anyone Im just saying the gold vs lower threat isnt going to go away.  They need to remove threat entirely.  Theres not enough players to support the segregated districts.  

Share this post


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

Theres not enough players to support the segregated districts.  

Soon... we hope.

Edited by CookiePuss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CookiePuss said:

Which do you expect makes it more likely for a gold player to get lower threat opp, by grouping with bronze and silver teammates? Or by playing with gold teammates?

Because if you don't want them stomping lower threat players, don't yell at them for not playing with lower threat players.

Well grouping up with a dethrater is much different than playing with a random bronze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, HawtGirl said:

Well grouping up with a dethrater is much different than playing with a random bronze.

That is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2020 at 8:00 PM, Solamente said:

why are you having so much trouble with this?

 

i do not have a suggestion, my only input is that i disagree with your suggestion to expand /abandonmission to allow players to quit opposed missions because it will be bad for overall gameplay

 

THAT IS THE POINT!!!  You literally just  confirmed what i have been saying about you and admitted, that your ONLY SOLE purpose of joining conversation is NOT to provide for the benefit of solving the problem discussion is about, or suggest better solution,  BUT solely  for the purpose to disagree with everything someone say.  *huge long facepalm*

THAT IS THE EASIEST thing to do !!  Removed flaming.    - Azukii

 

Obviously you are not familiar with most common world expression, when you are trying to be smartass with something what is widely known, then its said "you are not Columbus, you didnt discover America" by saying "your suggestion can and will be abused by players".   

Yes mr. Sherlock Holmes...EVERY system is corrupted, and EVERY system can be cheated and abused, because its created by mankind, and EVERYTHING mankind created WAS, IS,  AND WILL BE corruptible.

So your only counter to my suggestion "it can be abused"  didnt discover America. Hope its more clear to you now, what i meant. That doesnt mean we should leave status quo.  

 

As for rest of the abandon system opp which I instantly said its imaginative and WILL NEVER happen in APB and its utopia, i said it WOULD be good there is a sort of escape from cheating hacker bullies opp. 

But since we cant even get engine upgrade which is (like good ol G1 used to say soon tm) promised summer  holidays 2018  early spring  2019  summer 2019  autum 2019  and counting,  we certainly wont get an option to quit missions with opp any time soon.  So there is no need to discuss this anymore. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe the game would be better without missions overall and a whole new system of gameplay where even issues like threat and matchmaking wouldn't wouldn't be a problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kitty Yekaterina said:

THAT IS THE POINT!!!  You literally just  confirmed what i have been saying about you and admitted, that your ONLY SOLE purpose of joining conversation is NOT to provide for the benefit of solving the problem discussion is about, or suggest better solution,  BUT solely  for the purpose to disagree with everything someone say.  *huge long facepalm*

THAT IS THE EASIEST thing to do !! Removed flaming.    - Azukii

legitimately disagreeing with a suggestion is not being a jackass, or even negative at all - no one disagreeing with suggestions is how rtw ended up making apb into a giant mess in the first place 

 

 

6 hours ago, Kitty Yekaterina said:

Obviously you are not familiar with most common world expression, when you are trying to be smartass with something what is widely known, then its said "you are not Columbus, you didnt discover America" by saying "your suggestion can and will be abused by players".   

Yes mr. Sherlock Holmes...EVERY system is corrupted, and EVERY system can be cheated and abused, because its created by mankind, and EVERYTHING mankind created WAS, IS,  AND WILL BE corruptible.

So your only counter to my suggestion "it can be abused"  didnt discover America. Hope its more clear to you now, what i meant. That doesnt mean we should leave status quo.  

clearly didn’t comprehend my post, since you’re still making this a black and white argument 

 

my point was not that the system can be abused (we’re in agreement that almost every system can be), my point was that the potential abuse and subsequent negative effects in gameplay outweigh the potential positives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the best things in apb is the free choices that the players have , they can choice to play the mission that up coming or not . 

 

  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2020 at 2:08 PM, illgot said:

it didn't actually work well.  It was odd, crims could be opposed to crims but enforcers could not fight enforcers.  You ended up with crims vs crims while two groups of enforcers stood around waiting for opposition.

It does make sense, rival gangs go against each other on a daily basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Nivo said:

It does make sense, rival gangs go against each other on a daily basis.

from a player standpoint it doesn't.  You have 2 groups waiting around instead of giving all 4 groups opposition.

 

With the population issues NA is currently facing I would love to see a free for all.  Factions be damned if I have to sit around for 10 minutes waiting for opposition to show up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2020 at 10:08 AM, CookiePuss said:

On the one hand, people complain about Golds stomping on lower threat players.

On the other hand, golds get shit talked for abandoning missions with lower threat players.

 

Reminder that the community agrees on nothing.

I always attempt to /abandonmission as soon as humanly possible.

Whether my Teammates are lowly Bronze , questionable Silvers or godly Golds.

 

I'm gone.

 

No, it does not leave me much after that.

 

But still fighting the "good fight"...

 

Share this post


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

With the population issues NA is currently facing I would love to see a free for all.  Factions be damned if I have to sit around for 10 minutes waiting for opposition to show up.

Honestly at this point it's probably the only way to make things work right for NA. Now that threated districts are back, we have that basic barrier between the top and bottom ends of the spectrum. Opening up matchmaking to ignore a player's faction would improve the situation further, even if only a bit.

  • Like 1
  • Dislike 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2020 at 6:08 PM, Solamente said:

legitimately disagreeing with a suggestion is not being a jackass, or even negative at all - no one disagreeing with suggestions is how rtw ended up making apb into a giant mess in the first place 

 

You didnt legitimately disagree with a suggestion. Legitimately means that you would provide legitimate en betterment of my suggestion which u did not. 

 

  • Dislike 1

Share this post


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

You didnt legitimately disagree with a suggestion. Legitimately means that you would provide legitimate en betterment of my suggestion which u did not. 

 

Pointing out flaws or disagreeing with a suggestion without offering improvements to said suggestion is in no way de facto illegitimate. Pointing out the obvious shortcomings of electric cars compared to conventional combustion engine cars is very legitimate, without suggesting technological improvements to electric cars.

Share this post


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

You didnt legitimately disagree with a suggestion. Legitimately means that you would provide legitimate en betterment of my suggestion which u did not. 

 

if you're so hung up on the need for me to present a suggestion, then you can consider that technically my counter-suggestion is that we leave the /abandonmission system exactly as it is right now

 

there problem solved

  • Haha 1

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...