Unpopular Opinion, but I Want to Get it Out There.

[Mitne 724]

On 3/24/2020 at 7:31 PM, Rehtaelle said:

I would rather that rocket launchers be mission objective-provided tools rather than personal weapons. This way they'll be available to anyone during vehicle delivery objectives since they're practically required to stop the delivery vehicle unless you're unlucky enough to have to drive in a Moirai. Obviously, this would never happen, the community outlash would be immense, but I can only imagine it helping the overall state of the game. In this way, players without launchers and conc grenades can make a contribution to these modes.

There a lot of examples of one-use rocket launchers irl.

I think they would be good as consumables (as permanent mods they would be way too dangerous in my opinion).

I approve - this playtime curve (the more you play, the easier access to better equipement) really needs some drop in some way.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Mitne

[PingOVER9000 189]

13 hours ago, ChristmasElf said:

Iwant action and fc districts to be removed because there is too much violence (specially against women). People will learn to be more social in breakwater marina and  try to end their social disorders.

Thats a right step to world peace.

 

If you are so afraid of our social disorders, gimme everyone us 50 euros

1 hour ago, Mitne said:

There a lot of examples of one-use rocket launchers irl.

I think they would be good as consumables (as permanent mods they would be way too dangerous in my opinion).

I approve - this playtime curve (the more you play, the easier access to better equipement) really needs some drop in some way.

Sincerly I dont get your speech... only ones cant use explosive weapons are low rank players or havent purchased it in armas...

[CookiePuss 5382]

9 hours ago, Noob_Guardian said:

or you know aligs,

 

the first free perm weapon i got for 0 slot was the alig for a reason xD

Honestly if you didn't pick the ALIG as your perm tutorial weapon, you should delete your character and start again.

[vsb 6174]

9 hours ago, Noob_Guardian said:

or you know aligs,

 

the first free perm weapon i got for 0 slot was the alig for a reason xD

8 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

Honestly if you didn't pick the ALIG as your perm tutorial weapon, you should delete your character and start again.

yeah us veterans with ten thousand hours obviously know better but i don't this is a good "excuse" when it comes to new players just completing the initial tutorial - if they aren't still mislead by the flat out incorrect ingame stat bars, i'd wager most end up either picking a weapon they recognize from being killed a lot by or just snagging the permanent version of whatever weapon they've enjoyed renting the most

 

[Mitne 724]

1 hour ago, CookiePuss said:

Honestly if you didn't pick the ALIG as your perm tutorial weapon, you should delete your character and start again.

I don't have ALIG or any skins and I had ways to deal with car runners anyway. DMR for example. Which is one of options as perm weapon too.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Mitne

[Noob_Guardian 418]

7 hours ago, Mitne said:

I don't have ALIG or any skins and I had ways to deal with car runners anyway. DMR for example. Which is one of options as perm weapon too.

but you have carsurf, they don't.

[Rehtaelle 18]

On 3/24/2020 at 9:31 PM, CookiePuss said:

#removeExplosives

Maybe not entirely, but I'm not fond of launchers. I think with significant nerfs, I'd like the OPGL. I feel like that should be a support weapon, not an assault weapon/ artillery. (Unpopular opinions, like I said.)

On 3/24/2020 at 11:28 PM, Nabiki said:

I oppose this I have a volcano I if this was to be a thing would expect it to be compensated for the loss.

 

Now I remember how much money I spent in box's obtaining it which was the sum of $350.00  so it is a loss monetarily that I agreed to when using a casino box however with that said I only agreed to it with the knowledge I could continue to use the item I purchased.

 

however your proposal would mean they remove the item I purchased in Armas which would effect not just me, but many others who may have paid more real life cash on these box's.

You're absolutely right. (I think?) But the current implementation of launchers would be very disruptive if it were removed, and compensation for any money spent on a weapon that would no longer be available should be a thing, but I can't envision a practical way of making that happen, and even then people would be upset.

On 3/25/2020 at 3:06 AM, EvaPooh said:

That's pathetic.

 

I own 2 volcanoes as well and would give them up in a heartbeat if it meant improving the overall gameplay for everyone. Your entire post is the epitome of what's wrong with this game.

Not really down for the hostility, but I mimic the sentiment.

 

Merged.

 

On 3/25/2020 at 7:23 AM, MartinPL said:

Honestly... not a bad idea. It would definitely be interesting if certain vehicle-oriented missions provided both teams with coordinates to "secret stashes" or "weapon caches" containing rocket launchers. Of course they would have to be spawned somewhere between the car and the drop-off to allow the defending team to actually grab it and be able to use it — kind of like a side objective running side-by-side with the mission objective; you have to attack by getting the car to the drop-off, but you can defend somewhere else to deny the other team a utility.

Love it. That said, it would be tricky to figure out a system for balancing the number of launchers available. One per person is far too many unless each person only gets 1 shot. That said, if they were carried like heavy objects where you would want to put them in your trunk, that would be good. PLUS it would reward vehicles with trunk space.

 

Merged.

 

On 3/25/2020 at 11:23 AM, -Niw said:

I don't even really mind the explosive weapons all that much to be honest. The OPGL only works well in certain areas on the map and can be easily evaded in most situations, the EOL grenade launchers are in every way inferior to the OPGL, the OSMAW can't even blow up a vegas anymore (which is what literally everyone that doesn't drive a pioneer is driving nowadays) and the ALIG is way better at taking out vehicles than the OSMAW anyway imo. The only other explosive weapon that is left is the volcano. That is the only explosive weapon that does bother me at times. The explosion radius of the volcano at range combined with having 2 rockets can make it extremely annoying since you often cannot evade it no matter how hard you try. 

 

I would not mind if the explosive weapons would be changed stat-wise or if they would be removed completely though, but don't put them around the map as item pickups. Right now people at least need to sacrifice their primary weapon to use explosive weapons, which in turn makes them less effective in 1 on 1 encounters. Besides, the spam of regular grenades is already annoying enough as is and we don't need explosive spam from picked up weapons on top of that. 

I have agreements and disagreements here. The drawback of having to pick it up as opposed to equipping it as a primary would be that you can't keep it on your person if you want to switch to using normal weapons. The thing about rocket launchers, they're not good at killing. They're good at utility. They have an incredibly powerful utility, not found in any other weapon or tool of the game, and the fact that this incredibly unique and effective utility is locked behind weeks of grind/ a paywall is kind of... Stupid?

[vsb 6174]

2 minutes ago, Rehtaelle said:

the fact that this incredibly unique and effective utility is locked behind weeks of grind/ a paywall is kind of... Stupid?

why not simply bring the 0slot version unlocks closer to the same rank as a majority of the other f2p weapons?

[Rehtaelle 18]

On 3/25/2020 at 12:27 PM, Solamente said:

apologies if some of this has already been addressed, i typed it up hours ago and then forgot to post

 

aside from my personal reluctance to remove personal explosive weapons i don’t think simply allowing such free explosive use would really change much, most players who know what they’re doing don’t use explosives (except perhaps the volcano, which needs a rebalance regardless) for av in the first place

 

i do have several questions:

would it only be provided for vehicle delivery missions?

would it replace a players primary/secondary weapon or be an addition 3rd weapon?

 how does the game determine who gets the rocket launcher?

how does the game determine what explosive weapon fits which mission? 

is it a forced equip?

if it’s a random pickup item (as someone above suggested) does it spawn randomly?

can anyone pick it up?

will it respawn?

is it limited duration?

will it have the same balance as current explosives? 

 

and while some may find it “pathetic” to inquire about, the fact remains that players have spent large amounts of money and joker tickets in order to acquire explosive weapons and i think there does need to be some for of compensation in place - total removal of personal explosives is very different from the normal balancing guns receive as a matter of course

 

i think the easier (and less drastic) solution would be to allow explosives to be unlocked at a lower rank, even so low as all the other original apb weapons

Great points here. I'll try to hit them in order.

 

1. Probably only for vehicle delivery, though I won't say that definitively.

 

2. (I'm mostly hashing out these suggestions on the spot here, so my posts may vary) I would make it behave like a heavy object, except move a bit faster. So you'd still get to have your primary and secondary, but you would treat the launcher like equipment you have to lug around. This would also award players with trunk space. This would also mean that it would be a bit more challenging to position yourself to use it (I would allow jumping with it, of course), however if this is a mission-provided weapon, it means that you wouldn't have to go and rearrange your loadout while also sacrificing your guns. I'm thinking of it being one rocket per-player, meaning they'd go to a cache(s) and pick up a launcher for themselves. Once you pick one up, you are disallowed to take any more, and the number of caches would probably be proportional to the number of vehicles to deliver, allowing the defenders to respond from more directions. (I guess this one answered a fair few of the other questions)

 

3. As for which launcher you get, well... I'd personally just set it to the default OMSAW, but you know, that's just like, my opinion, man.

 

4. Anyone can pick up ONE. So the things would more or less be soulbound in a way.

 

5. Probably one-and-done. Use it wisely, and each player gets exactly one. This would mean the ALIG still has its role in the roster.

 

6. I would say that you only get it for as long as the current objective is active. If the objective changes, you're allowed to still use it if you have it equipped and haven't fired it yet, but the moment you put it down, it's gone.

 

7. Absolutely the stats would need tweaks to account for the new mechanic, though I think the current behavior of the OMSAW is sufficient for this purpose.

 

8. And the big one... The fact that the current explosives are tied to the game's economy... Compensation would absolutely be due, but to what ends? It's hard to say, since there's no good way to quantify the money spent towards obtaining one. Perhaps your chosen launcher would still be a thing, it would just be limited to the mid-mission usage. Even still, it's what makes the proposition so.... Awkward.

 

I would love it if explosives were more readily available, but also think that they could do with some nerfs should that happen, since they seemed to be balanced around the idea that they're in limited use. I personally (personal opinion) want OPGL to be more of a support weapon than what it is currently. I'd like the damage to see a 25% cut at least, or the blast radius to be much smaller.

 

Merged.

 

On 3/25/2020 at 12:30 PM, KnifuWaifu said:

I too have a volcano but still think it is an interesting topic that should be discussed but mostly because I'm not a fan of nerfing anything to the point of it being useless, might as well just take them away at that point and I'm seeing that with some other weapons, including explosives. Although I also think that rocket launchers and grenade launchers need to be treated different. 

 

For this part i'll just talk about rocket launchers and leave grenade launchers alone (just make the grenades flash with a light radius and most of us will probably just avoid them).

 

I'd like to see their role in APB reduced or mitigated in a fair and balanced way, but where would these pick ups spawn? Would they be shown on the map? Or in front of every respawning player? Both of these have exploits. And what missions would warrant use of a launcher? I mean if we're talking about those awful Low-Rider missions, the enemy barely has time to reach the objective, let alone make a stop off to find a rocket launcher beforehand.

 

Another option is to convert existing launchers into deployable boxes? Like the V-day/Slay Bells boxes, but instead of a random Holiday Weapon, it just poops out a Volcano or OSMAW, depending on which is selected/owned. Although now launcher users are trading a Primary slot for a Yellow/Orange mod slot, but at least they get something for previously owning a launcher. 

 

Another another option is everyone keeps their launchers but they could work like pick-up weapons as in they cannot be resupplied and once empty/dropped you revert to your previous Primary. But then what happens when you die? Respawn with a new Volcano/OSMAW? More exploits. 

 

This is a tough topic, maybe just buff Flak Jacket and let it be available at lower levels. Or do Flak Jacket I to III like the other green mods, have existing FJ as FJ II, give low level contacts FJ I, and higher contacts FJ III. (Either make the -1 grenade default across all FJs, or make it go -0, -1, -2 for I, II, and III respectively, I mean I'm fine with no grenades, I'm basic and don't use the fuckers anyway.) 

 

Introduce a new anti-explosive shield Yellow Mod? The [Umbrella] everyone gets 25 for free and then it's handed out like the rest of the yellow mods. 

 

Or go with the best idea ever and ban heavy weapons from Car Surfer (or ban Car Surfer) and enable Gunships. Great idea? Best idea.

 

 

I've answered several of these questions in a post just above this one (addressed at someone else and their questions), but I'll cover the rest here.

 

Spawns would probably be in caches a certain distance from the delivery zone. (Street-side only, or at the very least behind no closed doors/ fences) and the number of caches would match the number of vehicles to be delivered.

 

I would imagine that if you are killed while holding one, so long as you haven't fired your launcher, it will remain available to you until the current objective changes. (And obviously won't carry outside of the mission.)

 

When it comes to character/ vehicle/ gun mods, I have a lot to say (much of which is also unpopular). I think we would need to leave those out of the discussion currently, as the discussion I'm hoping to raise pertains more to anti-vehicle objectives over killing-power.

 

YES PLEASE. DISALLOW LAUNCHERS ON CARS. Or more practically, apply a drastic accuracy cut based upon the weight of the weapon, but again, the hope of the mission-tool concept is that it should render this matter pointless.

On 3/25/2020 at 4:52 PM, WEISSDEATH said:

Ookay, but this doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

 

This is about removing personal explosives not about the new players. 

Personally, im all for this but as stated above: What about them respawning? How will we know their around? Where will they be? Will they be close enough too the objectives(like vehicle missions) so the opp can grab them in time(plus equip them and then wind up a shot)? How would the OPGL fall into this? It has no real use when it comes to AV unless the car is stationary? Would the missions effect which explosives would spawn? If so, would it be restricted too certain stages of the missions or would they be available through all stages? 

One of my major concerns regards the EOLs, the unwanted disappointments of the explosives. For the few and small base of players such as myself that use them, what would occur too them? Would they be safe from this simply due to how bad they are  and lack of usage protect them or would they fall under it? Personally, i wouldn't want them to be caught up in this IF this would to ever occur, imagine getting the hammer on something like creme da crime or that armored truck mission, that wouldn't be fun. 

 

As annoying, frustrating and bad explosives are and can be, they are still one of the best ways to deal with vehicles and in the case of OPGL, especially for players that know what their doing(which is rare but still), remove/dislodge players from rooftops and other hard to reach and advantageous positions even with the availability of grenades.

I just made two posts which should hopefully answer these questions, and I share many of your sentiments.

On 3/26/2020 at 3:51 AM, Noob_Guardian said:

or you know aligs,

 

the first free perm weapon i got for 0 slot was the alig for a reason xD

Yeah... No. ALIG is Alove, ALIG is Alife, but it's not gonna stop a Vegas objective car that's hauling patootie to the dropoff. ALIG is just blatantly too slow to stop most objective vehicles unless the unlucky bastards get one of the flimsy/ slow cars.

 

Merged.

 

On 3/26/2020 at 10:59 AM, Mitne said:

There a lot of examples of one-use rocket launchers irl.

I think they would be good as consumables (as permanent mods they would be way too dangerous in my opinion).

I approve - this playtime curve (the more you play, the easier access to better equipement) really needs some drop in some way.

Consumables, not so much. Then it's still a case of the haves and have-nots, plus it would HEAVILY overshadow other consumables. I just made some other replies that should shed more light on my thoughts.

On 3/26/2020 at 1:26 PM, Solamente said:

yeah us veterans with ten thousand hours obviously know better but i don't this is a good "excuse" when it comes to new players just completing the initial tutorial - if they aren't still mislead by the flat out incorrect ingame stat bars, i'd wager most end up either picking a weapon they recognize from being killed a lot by or just snagging the permanent version of whatever weapon they've enjoyed renting the most

 

^
Oh, yeah, this gun TOTALLY does that much stamina damage. e_e

[vsb 6174]

28 minutes ago, Rehtaelle said:

2. (I'm mostly hashing out these suggestions on the spot here, so my posts may vary) I would make it behave like a heavy object, except move a bit faster. So you'd still get to have your primary and secondary, but you would treat the launcher like equipment you have to lug around. This would also award players with trunk space. This would also mean that it would be a bit more challenging to position yourself to use it (I would allow jumping with it, of course), however if this is a mission-provided weapon, it means that you wouldn't have to go and rearrange your loadout while also sacrificing your guns. I'm thinking of it being one rocket per-player, meaning they'd go to a cache(s) and pick up a launcher for themselves. Once you pick one up, you are disallowed to take any more, and the number of caches would probably be proportional to the number of vehicles to deliver, allowing the defenders to respond from more directions. (I guess this one answered a fair few of the other questions)

 

3. As for which launcher you get, well... I'd personally just set it to the default OMSAW, but you know, that's just like, my opinion, man.

 

4. Anyone can pick up ONE. So the things would more or less be soulbound in a way.

 

5. Probably one-and-done. Use it wisely, and each player gets exactly one. This would mean the ALIG still has its role in the roster.

seems like it would be a little too niche to the point where they aren't worth picking up

 

aside from opp potentially delivering vehicles while your team is off chasing down an osmaw pickup, unlimited delivery vehicle respawns and limited osmaw uses mean you'll likely need to fall back to other av weapons even with a team of four

 

it sounds nice in theory to allow new players to contribute with explosives, but in practice i feel all this mechanic will lead to is inexperienced players wasting mission time picking up single-use consumables and then proceeding to waste those pick ups anyway because they don't have the necessary skills to effectively use them

 

 

22 minutes ago, Rehtaelle said:

I would love it if explosives were more readily available, but also think that they could do with some nerfs should that happen, since they seemed to be balanced around the idea that they're in limited use. I personally (personal opinion) want OPGL to be more of a support weapon than what it is currently. I'd like the damage to see a 25% cut at least, or the blast radius to be much smaller.

explosives are already slightly underpowered so i disagree that nerfs are necessary, aside from the volcano being reworked to only fire one rocket at a time

 

 

[Rehtaelle 18]

Niche, but for the situation where that niche is most filled.

 

You would absolutely need to fall back on other weapons eventually, that's the point. You use the launcher when it's clutch and you're convinced that nothing else will work.

 

And new players not being good with the tools they're given is kind of... Well, what makes them new. Learn by doing, and all that.

 

I would argue that explosives make certain locations borderline untakable, if not fully so, and of course, they're another key weapon in anti-vehicle matters, especially when you need to break into a car, no form of cover really matters if they know how to arc the thing. Like I was saying, they should be for support, not a directly offensive weapon.

[vsb 6174]

15 minutes ago, Rehtaelle said:

Niche, but for the situation where that niche is most filled.

 

You would absolutely need to fall back on other weapons eventually, that's the point. You use the launcher when it's clutch and you're convinced that nothing else will work.

 

And new players not being good with the tools they're given is kind of... Well, what makes them new. Learn by doing, and all that.

 

I would argue that explosives make certain locations borderline untakable, if not fully so, and of course, they're another key weapon in anti-vehicle matters, especially when you need to break into a car, no form of cover really matters if they know how to arc the thing. Like I was saying, they should be for support, not a directly offensive weapon.

explosives are already a niche weapon class, even more so now that they can't resupply via ammo box

 

new players not being good with the tools they have available is one thing, but actively removing those tools from a majority of the game will only broaden the experience/contribution gap between players who already understand these weapons after owning them for years and players who have to figure it out one use per every five missions

 

there are certain locations that many weapons make borderline untakeable, that's a map balance issue not a weapon balance issue

 

rocket launchers excelling at single point area denial seems pretty support to me, they're already much more of a deterrent than a directly offensive weapon

[Rehtaelle 18]

11 hours ago, Solamente said:

explosives are already a niche weapon class, even more so now that they can't resupply via ammo box

 

new players not being good with the tools they have available is one thing, but actively removing those tools from a majority of the game will only broaden the experience/contribution gap between players who already understand these weapons after owning them for years and players who have to figure it out one use per every five missions

 

there are certain locations that many weapons make borderline untakeable, that's a map balance issue not a weapon balance issue

 

rocket launchers excelling at single point area denial seems pretty support to me, they're already much more of a deterrent than a directly offensive weapon

It was rather late when I typed that. I mean to say:

 

I would argue that explosives grenade launchers make certain locations borderline untakable, if not fully so, and of course, they're another key weapon in anti-vehicle matters, especially when you need to break into a car, no form of cover really matters if they know how to arc the thing. Like I was saying, they should be for support, not a directly offensive weapon.

 

EDIT: To further state what I would like to happen to grenade launchers (Based upon the vanilla variant) I would like the damage model to be dropped down to that of the percussion grenades, or slightly higher, but not by much. (And obviously cut the stamina damage, otherwise it would give enforcers an undue edge.) and perhaps drop the hard damage by 20%. WIth these changes in mind, I think it would be appropriate to extend its radius by .5m (For a 1m wider diameter, of course, but thinking of it in diameter might shift the perspective on that number.)

Edited March 28, 2020 by Rehtaelle

[illgot 379]

On 3/24/2020 at 2:31 PM, Rehtaelle said:

I would rather that rocket launchers be mission objective-provided tools rather than personal weapons. This way they'll be available to anyone during vehicle delivery objectives since they're practically required to stop the delivery vehicle unless you're unlucky enough to have to drive in a Moirai. Obviously, this would never happen, the community outlash would be immense, but I can only imagine it helping the overall state of the game. In this way, players without launchers and conc grenades can make a contribution to these modes.

explosive weapons are great against people camping rooftops or limited access locations.

 

It would be nice if all rank 195 mods would drop to rank 85 so new players have more defense against explosives.

[vsb 6174]

17 hours ago, Rehtaelle said:

It was rather late when I typed that. I mean to say:

 

I would argue that explosives grenade launchers make certain locations borderline untakable, if not fully so, and of course, they're another key weapon in anti-vehicle matters, especially when you need to break into a car, no form of cover really matters if they know how to arc the thing. Like I was saying, they should be for support, not a directly offensive weapon.

 

EDIT: To further state what I would like to happen to grenade launchers (Based upon the vanilla variant) I would like the damage model to be dropped down to that of the percussion grenades, or slightly higher, but not by much. (And obviously cut the stamina damage, otherwise it would give enforcers an undue edge.) and perhaps drop the hard damage by 20%. WIth these changes in mind, I think it would be appropriate to extend its radius by .5m (For a 1m wider diameter, of course, but thinking of it in diameter might shift the perspective on that number.)

i'll repeat that many weapons make locations borderline untakeable and that isn't an issue to be solved via weapon balance - if an objective is too open so as to be impossible to take you add more cover, you don't nerf snipers

 

assuming you're just suggesting opgl changes, since any nerfs to the already underpowered eol weapons would be silly:

• a 60% soft damage nerf feels very overboard (without even taking into account flak jacket), percussion grenades have low damage because they are essentially instant-use whereas the opgl has a 5s fuse timer
• the opgl only does 500 stamina damage so any "undue edge" for enforcers would be fairly minimal, not to mention enforcers have their own ltl version of the opgl anyway
• a hard damage nerf goes against pushing explosives into a support and/or av role

these stat changes seem contrary to your desire to make the opgl less offensive, as reduced damage resulting in an impossibly long ttk will force users to push more than ever and quickswitch for almost every kill - a higher radius allowing users to ping enemies for that initial damage burst more reliably only doubles down

 

lack of damage will also hamper the opgl as an area denial support weapon - enemies are much less likely to be afraid of sustaining 400 damage, especially if they already have an environmental advantage over the other approaching members of your team

 

the hard damage nerf probably wouldn't affect much in the end since the opgl already requires at least 10s (2 shots) to destroy most, if not all, vehicles but at that point it seems rather pointless

 

ultimately i think your proposed opgl would end up worse than all of the eol series, which are not known for being particularly well balanced themselves - why waste a primary weapon slot for a gun that is outperformed by the grenades that every player already carries?

[Rehtaelle 18]

On 3/29/2020 at 4:35 PM, illgot said:

explosive weapons are great against people camping rooftops or limited access locations.

 

It would be nice if all rank 195 mods would drop to rank 85 so new players have more defense against explosives.

I agree to an extent, however this is a bigger issue with map design than with our arsenals.

 

Merged.

 

On 3/29/2020 at 6:15 PM, Solamente said:

i'll repeat that many weapons make locations borderline untakeable and that isn't an issue to be solved via weapon balance - if an objective is too open so as to be impossible to take you add more cover, you don't nerf snipers

 

assuming you're just suggesting opgl changes, since any nerfs to the already underpowered eol weapons would be silly:

• a 60% soft damage nerf feels very overboard (without even taking into account flak jacket), percussion grenades have low damage because they are essentially instant-use whereas the opgl has a 5s fuse timer
• the opgl only does 500 stamina damage so any "undue edge" for enforcers would be fairly minimal, not to mention enforcers have their own ltl version of the opgl anyway
• a hard damage nerf goes against pushing explosives into a support and/or av role

these stat changes seem contrary to your desire to make the opgl less offensive, as reduced damage resulting in an impossibly long ttk will force users to push more than ever and quickswitch for almost every kill - a higher radius allowing users to ping enemies for that initial damage burst more reliably only doubles down

 

lack of damage will also hamper the opgl as an area denial support weapon - enemies are much less likely to be afraid of sustaining 400 damage, especially if they already have an environmental advantage over the other approaching members of your team

 

the hard damage nerf probably wouldn't affect much in the end since the opgl already requires at least 10s (2 shots) to destroy most, if not all, vehicles but at that point it seems rather pointless

 

ultimately i think your proposed opgl would end up worse than all of the eol series, which are not known for being particularly well balanced themselves - why waste a primary weapon slot for a gun that is outperformed by the grenades that every player already carries?

When I was referring to a knock against stamina damage, the ratio of damage to stamina from these altered grenades would be very LTL-friendly. And I did mention that I think a bit higher damage than percs would suit me fine. And yes, the entire point against a (small) hard damage nerf is (still a small one) is that with the proposed mission-available AV weapons, the OPGL would be far more than should be available. Besides, concs and normal grenades still exist (conc grenades are yet another weapon that should be made more accessible). 

 

And what you're describing with being not-"less offensive", That's kind of the point. The blast should be an opener for teammates/ other weapons, similar to the N-HVR which is fairly inefficient against anyone who knows how to take cover and flank (not bad, just inefficient) unless it gets an assist/ is the assist. As a sniper, once I reframed my state of mind as being a support player rather than a kill player, it all connected. So similarly with a launcher, it's a weapon with a TON of unique utility, and rather than make it a doomsday device in hallways, I'd rather see it be used to support allies. People claim it's a tool to flush people out, but... Technically yes, though there's generally little reason to try and run from it if it lands near you, because it'll kill you anyway.

 

And I understand the last sentiment, my point is more that the launcher has many more grenades than what are on your belt. So yes, I suppose what I'm chasing is more of an EOL-OPGL hybrid design.

 

But if you're not convinced by now, then I don't expect you to be going forward.

[claude 223]

On 3/24/2020 at 6:28 PM, Nabiki said:

I oppose this I have a volcano I if this was to be a thing would expect it to be compensated for the loss.

 

Now I remember how much money I spent in box's obtaining it which was the sum of $350.00  so it is a loss monetarily that I agreed to when using a casino box however with that said I only agreed to it with the knowledge I could continue to use the item I purchased.

 

however your proposal would mean they remove the item I purchased in Armas which would effect not just me, but many others who may have paid more real life cash on these box's.

LMAOOOO. "they nerfed my legendary that i gambled $350 for, so that means i deserve the money back" LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLL

[Rehtaelle 18]

1 hour ago, claude said:

LMAOOOO. "they nerfed my legendary that i gambled $350 for, so that means i deserve the money back" LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLL

In due fairness, expenditure of money in order to get something, only for that purchase to be irrelevant is pretty fucked.

[vsb 6174]

9 hours ago, Rehtaelle said:

When I was referring to a knock against stamina damage, the ratio of damage to stamina from these altered grenades would be very LTL-friendly.

i suppose that's a good point with the opgl-cd being locked behind the cop role

 

 

9 hours ago, Rehtaelle said:

And I did mention that I think a bit higher damage than percs would suit me fine.

can you better define what "a bit" is? 50? 100? 150?

 

i think anything over 200 damage is more than "a bit", and anything below 750-850 will only continue to promote an aggressive playstyle 

 

 

9 hours ago, Rehtaelle said:

And yes, the entire point against a (small) hard damage nerf is (still a small one) is that with the proposed mission-available AV weapons, the OPGL would be far more than should be available. Besides, concs and normal grenades still exist (conc grenades are yet another weapon that should be made more accessible). 

a 20% hard damage nerf would bring the opgl down to 504 hard damage every 5s at minimum, for comparison here are some other weapons' hard damage output within the same 5s:

• alig - 2006
• swarm - 1571
• dmr - 648
• dmr av - 1080
• issr-b - 874
• obeya - 572
• ntec - 592 (full auto spray)
• star - 617 (full auto spray)
• atac - 528
• deep impact - 1108
• kickback - 1179
• hammer - 731
• percussion grenades - 547
• low yield grenades - 376
• frag grenades - 567
• concussion grenades - 1108

the opgl comes in nearly rock bottom even against guns that aren't considered av, with only loyos beating it out for worst hard damage

 

the argument could be made that the opgl is not constrained by range or LoS, but i think that's more than negated by the opgl being exponentially harder to use on moving targets (which most vehicles are)

 

i disagree that concs should be more accessible, i think locking items behind weapon roles is a good mix of playtime progression and skill based progression

 

 

9 hours ago, Rehtaelle said:

And what you're describing with being not-"less offensive", That's kind of the point. The blast should be an opener for teammates/ other weapons, similar to the N-HVR which is fairly inefficient against anyone who knows how to take cover and flank (not bad, just inefficient) unless it gets an assist/ is the assist. As a sniper, once I reframed my state of mind as being a support player rather than a kill player, it all connected. So similarly with a launcher, it's a weapon with a TON of unique utility, and rather than make it a doomsday device in hallways, I'd rather see it be used to support allies. People claim it's a tool to flush people out, but... Technically yes, though there's generally little reason to try and run from it if it lands near you, because it'll kill you anyway.

you're all over the place here

 

you want the opgl not to be a "directly offensive" weapon, but reducing damage forces users to push aggressively for every kill instead of sitting back and directing enemy movements

 

you also bring up the hvr as the ideal example of a support weapon but there's two problems:

1. the hvr isn't a support weapon, its arguably (pmg still broken) been the best gun in apb for years at this point, viable from 0-100m regardless of solo play or group composition - its good at being a support weapon because its good at everything
2. the hvr is so powerful because of its massive burst damage, allowing a single shot to take any player out of the fight for several seconds whether it killed them or not

these are both things that you're suggesting to nerf on the opgl, so i'm really not sure where you're going with this comparison

 

 

9 hours ago, Rehtaelle said:

And I understand the last sentiment, my point is more that the launcher has many more grenades than what are on your belt. So yes, I suppose what I'm chasing is more of an EOL-OPGL hybrid design.

but if the opgl grenades are less powerful than the grenades on your belt they're worthless, you would "support" your team more by running normal grenades and a more effective primary

 

the eol series are objectively not well balanced, and so they should not be used to balance other weapons

 

 

9 hours ago, Rehtaelle said:

But if you're not convinced by now, then I don't expect you to be going forward.

i remain unconvinced because your reasoning seems flawed

 

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by Solamente
edit

[claude 223]

3 hours ago, Rehtaelle said:

In due fairness, expenditure of money in order to get something, only for that purchase to be irrelevant is pretty fucked.

When you have the option to buy it for a couple of mil in a game where the currency is inflated to shit? Also, that purchase doesn't become irrelevant, it still has value... not like it was taken away from you.

[vsb 6174]

5 minutes ago, claude said:

When you have the option to buy it for a couple of mil in a game where the currency is inflated to shit? Also, that purchase doesn't become irrelevant, it still has value... not like it was taken away from you.

op is suggesting that rocket launchers are removed as primary weapons, so it would be taken away

[Rehtaelle 18]

1 hour ago, Solamente said:

you're all over the place here

 

you want the opgl not to be a "directly offensive" weapon, but reducing damage forces users to push aggressively for every kill instead of sitting back and directing enemy movements

 

you also bring up the hvr as the ideal example of a support weapon but there's two problems:

1. the hvr isn't a support weapon, its arguably (pmg still broken) been the best gun in apb for years at this point, viable from 0-100m regardless of solo play or group composition - its good at being a support weapon because its good at everything
2. the hvr is so powerful because of its massive burst damage, allowing a single shot to take any player out of the fight for several seconds whether it killed them or not

these are both things that you're suggesting to nerf on the opgl, so i'm really not sure where you're going with this comparison

(I'll try to respond to all of the points I can, I'm just not going to quote the entire post)

 

When it comes to exact damage values, obviously what's on paper doesn't always reflect what happens, so testing would need to come into play, and thus it's better to apply the concept of what you're hoping for than exact values in all cases. (Obviously numbers will still help to establish things, but I'm sure you get my point.)

 

I use the N-HVR almost exclusively these days (girl even has an N-HVR tattoo on her thigh), and what I mean by a support weapon is that in most games, a sniper rifle is capable of being a 1-hit kill all on its own. For maximum effectiveness, the N-HVR is paired with a teammate. While very powerful on its own (Again, very, very familiar with the gun) it has major limitations on versatility, and taking down targets in high cover areas. Once LoS is broken, whatever happens to the target in question is beyond your control. Sure, I can tag enemies running into an alley towards my team to set them up for easy kills, but unless my team gets involved prior to that, I can't rack up any kills effectively. (Unless the street is SUPER wide-open.)

 

So what I mean by support weapon is that it be most valuable when paired with a teammate. Either enabling your teammate to charge in with an advantage, or to be more effective at flushing enemies out of cover (obviously death is more effective than flushing, I'm saying more effective in terms of a nerf) So a bump up in radius at the cost of damage (Maybe a tiny bump up in fire rate, but that would depend on play testing) would make the thing great for supporting your team rather than leading it. In the end, this proposal is a nerf, but I would like it to be one that re-establishes its place in the arsenal, not one that just actively downgrades the thing in all regards.

 

And as for being "less powerful than the ones on your belt" quantity is the key here. In fact, the cut to damage should come with an increase to max carry count. One, maybe two more mags.

 

I'm not saying to use EOL as a baseline, but I think reaching stats in the middle would (in theory) be a good resting place.

 

If you're not sold on the idea, I don't expect you to be. Hell, the title says "Unpopular opinion". 

[vsb 6174]

1 hour ago, Rehtaelle said:

(I'll try to respond to all of the points I can, I'm just not going to quote the entire post)

 

When it comes to exact damage values, obviously what's on paper doesn't always reflect what happens, so testing would need to come into play, and thus it's better to apply the concept of what you're hoping for than exact values in all cases. (Obviously numbers will still help to establish things, but I'm sure you get my point.)

fair enough, altho its fairly easy to extrapolate how stat changes would affect weapons there's no way to be certain until they're live

 

 

1 hour ago, Rehtaelle said:

in most games, a sniper rifle is capable of being a 1-hit kill all on its own. For maximum effectiveness, the N-HVR is paired with a teammate. While very powerful on its own (Again, very, very familiar with the gun) it has major limitations on versatility, and taking down targets in high cover areas. Once LoS is broken, whatever happens to the target in question is beyond your control. Sure, I can tag enemies running into an alley towards my team to set them up for easy kills, but unless my team gets involved prior to that, I can't rack up any kills effectively. (Unless the street is SUPER wide-open.)

in most games every weapon can kill with a headshot

 

the same points about LoS and team coordination can be made about any hitscan weapon in apb, the game is inherently designed to enhance the effects of team coordination

 

i can't help but question how familiar you are with the hvr if you think it lacks versatility, it's received several nerfs precisely because its too versatile and yet it remains so

 

 

1 hour ago, Rehtaelle said:

So what I mean by support weapon is that it be most valuable when paired with a teammate. Either enabling your teammate to charge in with an advantage, or to be more effective at flushing enemies out of cover (obviously death is more effective than flushing, I'm saying more effective in terms of a nerf) So a bump up in radius at the cost of damage (Maybe a tiny bump up in fire rate, but that would depend on play testing) would make the thing great for supporting your team rather than leading it. In the end, this proposal is a nerf, but I would like it to be one that re-establishes its place in the arsenal, not one that just actively downgrades the thing in all regards.

 the opgl is already most valuable when paired with a teammate as unlike the hvr you can't really hold your big burst damage back to be used at any time, so aggressive plays are much riskier 

 

i'm unclear on how your suggested changes would re-establish the opgl's (already clearly defined) place, as they reduce its effectiveness at area denial and make it almost incapable of killing enemies on its own - the opgl already has the longest ttk of any weapon in apb iirc, and any damage nerf at all will double it from 5s to 10s

 

additionally this new opgl would not have its own place at all, its almost guaranteed to land somewhere equivalent with the current eol weapons depending on final numbers, leaving its niche all the more muddled

 

 

1 hour ago, Rehtaelle said:

And as for being "less powerful than the ones on your belt" quantity is the key here. In fact, the cut to damage should come with an increase to max carry count. One, maybe two more mags.

quantity is not enough to make up the difference as we can already see with the eol weapons, even offering players 4-8x more grenades (which are slightly better than their normal counterparts) is not enough of an offset for a poorly performing primary weapon

 

 

 

if the opgl absolutely has to be nerfed imo there are two ways to go about it without crippling the gun

 

option 1 is to leave it mostly untouched, only decreasing the damage radius - this forces users to be more accurate and precise without compromising the threat of a properly placed grenade, and also removes a lot of versatility because relying on excess splash damage to quickswitch will be much more difficult

 

option 2 is to slightly reduce damage, i would say no lower than 800, and leave the current radii alone - this allows the opgl to keep its current area denial niche and almost all of its versatility, but without the possibility of a one hit kill

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by Solamente
edit

[Rehtaelle 18]

17 minutes ago, Solamente said:

the same points about LoS and team coordination can be made about any hitscan weapon in apb, the game is inherently designed to enhance the effects of team coordination

 

i can't help but question how familiar you are with the hvr if you think it lacks versatility, it's received several nerfs precisely because its too versatile and yet it remains so

I should restate, the NHVR is not able to chase the way an AR, SMG, or Shotgun could, given distance and mobility. Also, I'm fairly practiced with the thing at <10m. (idfc what people will say about me for doing the N-HVR pop then a perc slam. If you wanna rush me with a shotgun or SMG all bets are off.)

 

But let's be totally real, if a sniper rifle like the N-HVR were as versatile as an AR, you wouldn't see anyone using ARs. They serve their role best as fight shorteners, either setting up for an ally or picking up where someone left off. Can you effectively single-focus targets? Of course you can. But the maximum efficiency of the weapon is reached when supported/ supporting. Ironically it takes the opposite role of what I'm suggesting for grenade launchers, where a sniper drives people into cover, the launcher drives them out.

 

24 minutes ago, Solamente said:

the opgl is already most valuable when paired with a teammate as unlike the hvr you can't really hold your big burst damage back to be used at any time, so aggressive plays are much riskier 

 

i'm unclear on how your suggested changes would re-establish the opgl's (already clearly defined) place, as they reduce its effectiveness at area denial and make it almost incapable of killing enemies on its own - the opgl already has the longest ttk of any weapon in apb iirc, and any damage nerf at all will double it from 5s to 10s

 

additionally this new opgl would not have its own place at all, its almost guaranteed to land somewhere equivalent with the current eol weapons depending on final numbers, leaving its niche all the more muddled

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but OPGL is in the category of one-shot-kill viable weapons. While that doesn't automatically turn it into an assault weapon (give the fuse) it is technically capable of killing someone without Line of Sight in one-shot. (Unless that's changed and I was unaware). And the cut to hard damage in this case (And I do envision a very small cut) would be based on the original point of this thread, readily available rocket launchers for all. The presence of AV grenade launchers on top of more abundant rockets would presumably be a bit much to try and work through, not to mention ordinary grenades. (I still think Conc grenades should be available slightly sooner, purely because Anti-vehicle burst options are ENTIRELY unavailable to newer players who are left totally helpless in that regard and rely upon players who HAVE unlocked those things. It puts the people at the biggest knowledge disadvantage at an equipment disadvantage too, and a harsh one at that.

 

You should not have to pay or 1000hr grind to get a weapon dedicated to AV (not including concs, which you can technically earn sooner) (Also, I'm going to disregard comments about joker tickets for now. If you have to farm the fuck out of one mode just to afford a RENTAL for the main mode of the game, I wouldn't call that a reasonable solution)

 

31 minutes ago, Solamente said:

if the opgl absolutely has to be nerfed imo there are two ways to go about it without crippling the gun

 

option 1 is to leave it mostly untouched, only decreasing the damage radius - this forces users to be more accurate and precise without compromising the threat of a properly placed grenade, and also removes a lot of versatility because relying on excess splash damage to quickswitch will be much more difficult

 

option 2 is to slightly reduce damage, i would say no lower than 800, and leave the current radii alone - this allows the opgl to keep its current area denial niche and almost all of its versatility, but without the possibility of a one hit kill

I agree with the sentiment, and accept that my authority on the matter is limited.

 

1: Cutting the radius is VERY okay with me. I feel like it could be handled with a touch more deftness, but if there must be a nerf, I would be perfectly content with this one.

 

2: Yes. Perhaps I was a bit hasty going with Perc damage, as that's what I'm very accustomed to (perc + NHVR fan, as I've mentioned) And technically, option 2 is what I was proposing... Kinda. I was a bit sharp on the damage cuts to standard damage, and can see that point. And as mentioned before, I retain the notion of a reduction in hard damage to offset the new presence of mission-generated launchers. (All purely theoretical of course, I would NEVER expect this to come to fruition, but you know.)

 

AT ANY RATE, I feel this has been enough of a digression for the time being, and would prefer to return to the topic of rocket launchers (for now. I know that grenade launchers are invariably going to be part of the conversation).

 

[CookiePuss 5382]

59 minutes ago, Rehtaelle said:

I'm fairly practiced with the thing at <10m. (idfc what people will say about me for doing the N-HVR pop then a perc slam. If you wanna rush me with a shotgun or SMG all bets are off.)

I had a feeling you didn't really know what you were talking about, and this confirmed that suspicion.