In Your Honest Opinion; What Defines a TryHard in APB Reloaded?

[Rebelliousness 85]

Quote

IN YOUR HONEST OPINION; WHAT DEFINES A TRYHARD IN APB RELOADED?

Someone who thinks the game means using every trashy tactic, such as friends ghosting out of mission to repeatedly ram and block enemy team cars, pushing them out of place directly into the line of fire and interrupting their shots... to rage rerollers using cheats to get as many unbelievable kills in a mission possible,,, heedless of the fact that it is a team of golds versus a team of hopeless and hapless (trainee, green, bronze, low silvers) who have literally no chance to play at all, or even achieve 1 objective... but will die 20-30-40 times for the greater glory of the ego-pigs.

 

This also includes max ranks with the best meta guns in game blowing the literal patootie out of the enemy team such that they simply drive away from the mission in terror... and are literaly chased and hunted down... many times by people with esp-radar hacks... intent to get that mega kill ratio they can stream/brag about.  Such that it ends up being a game that only a clique of toxic tryhards play... and normal people long since leave for want of ability to accomplish 1 g-d damn thing.

[Noob_Guardian 417]

On 5/18/2020 at 4:32 PM, CookiePuss said:

Weird name to give someone for being better than someone else.

Or to someone who plays the game as intended.

I don't think exploiting game mechanics and camping things with no HUD icon is "following the spirit of the game". We can disagree, but i'm pretty sure exploiting is bannable, and camping things with no HUD icon makes you a d-bag.

[CookiePuss 5378]

58 minutes ago, Noob_Guardian said:

I don't think exploiting game mechanics and camping things with no HUD icon is "following the spirit of the game". We can disagree, but i'm pretty sure exploiting is bannable, and camping things with no HUD icon makes you a d-bag.

Sounds like that would make it easier to win. So you'd not be trying hard at all.

[vsb 6171]

3 hours ago, Noob_Guardian said:

I don't think exploiting game mechanics and camping things with no HUD icon is "following the spirit of the game". We can disagree, but i'm pretty sure exploiting is bannable, and camping things with no HUD icon makes you a d-bag.

are we really at the point where guarding items is now some unfair strat lmao

[WEISSDEATH 57]

2 hours ago, 404 said:

are we really at the point where guarding items is now some unfair strat lmao

God forbid you're intelligent enough to stay near the objective and not let the enemy touch it and potentially even run with it or move it to a spot thats even harder for you to get it back.

[Talla 84]

On 5/18/2020 at 4:32 PM, CookiePuss said:

Or to someone who plays the game as intended.

That would be saying the current mission / weapon balance is "intended"...

[CookiePuss 5378]

2 minutes ago, Talla said:

That would be saying the current mission / weapon balance is "intended"...

Those certainly didn't happen by accident.

[Noob_Guardian 417]

20 hours ago, CookiePuss said:

Sounds like that would make it easier to win. So you'd not be trying hard at all.

Most "try-hard" strats are strats that are hard to counter, that make it easier to win. I don't understand the linguistics of the word as to why it's tryhard or w/e but it is what it is.

18 hours ago, 404 said:

are we really at the point where guarding items is now some unfair strat lmao

Does the item have a HUD marker on it? Pretty sure anything that's meant to be "guarded" literally has a hud marker on it saying "guard" or "protect".

 

15 hours ago, WEISSDEATH said:

God forbid you're intelligent enough to stay near the objective and not let the enemy touch it and potentially even run with it or move it to a spot thats even harder for you to get it back.

Objective w/ hudmarker vs small/med items w/o that are 500m from obj "with" a hud marker on it. We're talking two different things bud.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Noob_Guardian

[yood 345]

defeat with a score of 20 / 3 . causes anger and hatred towards the development team . when silver and fake gold lose in the silver district to the Golden dogs, I get mad .

 

don't be offended , little orbit .  these are different levels of difficulty . 

 

the game will not generate revenue until you provide a comfortable existence for all players .

 

 

[vsb 6171]

5 hours ago, Noob_Guardian said:

Does the item have a HUD marker on it? Pretty sure anything that's meant to be "guarded" literally has a hud marker on it saying "guard" or "protect".

going by that logic, we’re only supposed to guard vehicle objectives on certain missions and on other missions we’re not allowed to?

 

how about vip missions - if the blurb specifically states only “kill the enemy leader”, should we just let the rest of the opp go and hope they don’t kill us because they don’t have hud markers?

 

obviously you feel differently, but i think walking away from enemies just because the blue hud marker moved is way more against “the spirit of the game” than following the instructions of the mission blurb

[Noob_Guardian 417]

15 hours ago, 404 said:

going by that logic, we’re only supposed to guard vehicle objectives on certain missions and on other missions we’re not allowed to?

 

how about vip missions - if the blurb specifically states only “kill the enemy leader”, should we just let the rest of the opp go and hope they don’t kill us because they don’t have hud markers?

 

obviously you feel differently, but i think walking away from enemies just because the blue hud marker moved is way more against “the spirit of the game” than following the instructions of the mission blurb

"

Owner Briefing

These Criminals aren't happy about you raiding their drug operation. Protect your leader while trying to kill or arrest them, so they can't re-open for business.

Dispatch Briefing

The Praetorians are going to keep disrupting our operations unless we can stop them, permanently. Take out their leader."

 

VIP is litterally TDM except that VIP lives being the only one that matters for the attackers. I'm not saying dont take out enemies nor am i saying that you can't shoot objective cars when you see em, just don't camp items 200+m from the actual obj.

 

You can think what you want, I just want people to stop camping items 200+m away from the actual objective against a team full of new players and silvers. (No really, they actually do this then have the audacity to say that they're "good" players against newbs.) I feel its against the spirit of the game, and extremely cheap as well. You can say what you want about the blurb, but it's a remnant of times where TTK's were far higher and it was generally easier to get away and get to point. You couldn't shoot things past the bullet range back then. Times have changed, and so should what's viewed as acceptable.

 

I cannot honestly say, that that tactic, has not encouraged hundreds of new players to leave the game. It's one thing  for the feeling after a mission to be like well, "we were close but couldn't get it" vs yeah that feels terrible we couldn't even get close to the objective because they were playing dirty.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Noob_Guardian

[vsb 6171]

8 hours ago, Noob_Guardian said:

[text]

new players facing veterans due to poor matchmaking is an entirely different issue from guarding items

[Noob_Guardian 417]

44 minutes ago, 404 said:

new players facing veterans due to poor matchmaking is an entirely different issue from guarding items

While true the problem is two faced imo.

 

When a tactic used somewhere, others pick up on it, and it becomes widespread. It wasn't just "vets" doing it. I had newbie silvers who were yelling at me for not camping enemy items at times despite us very obviously going to win without it. Matchmaking surely didn't help the problem, no, but that also doesn't mean that the "tactic" is imo a fair tactic on its own. Have I done it? Yes, do I feel dirty when i do? Absolutely.

 

 

[vsb 6171]

12 minutes ago, Noob_Guardian said:

While true the problem is two faced imo.

 

When a tactic used somewhere, others pick up on it, and it becomes widespread. It wasn't just "vets" doing it. I had newbie silvers who were yelling at me for not camping enemy items at times despite us very obviously going to win without it. Matchmaking surely didn't help the problem, no, but that also doesn't mean that the "tactic" is imo a fair tactic on its own. Have I done it? Yes, do I feel dirty when i do? Absolutely.

if matchmaking is optimal then the issue of a high skill team guarding items vs a low skill team ceases to exist, and the tactic is perfectly valid with even teams

 

if you're going to win anyway, then what exactly is the difference what objective the mission ends on?

[Noob_Guardian 417]

22 hours ago, 404 said:

if matchmaking is optimal then the issue of a high skill team guarding items vs a low skill team ceases to exist, and the tactic is perfectly valid with even teams

 

if you're going to win anyway, then what exactly is the difference what objective the mission ends on?

Sorry for the wall of text: Main synapse/point is in the spoiler. What's just below simply explains that every loss isn't weighted the same.

 

 

How so? If competition is literally "that two teams compete" why "should" it matter if it's high vs low skill teams? Why should it matter "where" a mission is lost/won and how? How is it magically unfair for once group but fair for the other?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you look at game play and why it matters, it matters because of the how, the essence of that loss. When you play a game and lose, sure it can feel bad sometimes, but if it was fair, fun, maybe "competitive", and felt "good" up to the point of loss, then it feels okay to lose.  But when you lose to something that isn't fun, or fair, nor competitive, it doesn't feel good. You can say well why does that matter? It matters because player experience is what drives a game to succeed or fail. APB has most certainly been failing because the community and how it operates; has gone literally unchecked for years, and when ANYTHING that causes such issues gets fixed, people complain that, that "feature" "glitch" "exploit" "tactic" "weapon" got removed or nerfed.

 

What is the difference between losing to someone moving a medium obj 3 m/s at it's intended movement speed vs someone bypassing the base speed and jump exploiting it at 6 m/s?

What is the difference between losing to a pioneer running from your team vs a pioneer who's movement speed reduction from carrying the VIP/Item is bypassed via car pushing?

What is the difference between losing to a strong enemy team who guarded an item in a semi-decent area and losing to a team that just camped it into the easiest to guard place in the game?

What is the difference to losing vs losing against someone who just exploited?

What is the difference between losing to a normal mission vs losing to spawn pushers who just pushed your spawn 350m from the objective?

What is the difference between losing to a team that just item camped 400m from the actual objective vs on the objective?"

 

Aside from "just losing" there IS a difference.

 

If they were "going to win anyways" why does it matter how, why, and where a mission "ends" if they were going to win? What's the difference between what "objective" the mission ends on?

 

That's a simple answer. It matters because impalanced gameplay mechanics aren't "competitive", they aren't "balanced" nor "fun" to go against. Player enjoyment is a massive factor in how well a game is liked, it's population, and how healthy that game population and community is.

 

A lot of veterans take such things for granted as "normal". But you get any new player, new popular streamer, or even the average player, and any of these things can be infuriating if you lost "that way". This "Normal" for APB "Vets" and "competitive players", isn't actually balanced, fair, competitive, nor is it generally "fun".  How would I know though? Look no further than how few players that we have left in APB. That should be enough to reflect whether the mission balance, game "features" and "exploits", and weapon balance should remain the same or be altered.

 

 

Synapse w/ times situation etc.

 

 

Why is camping items a problem?

5 minute timer, 300m +15m to car +15 to obj travel by foot lets say travel is via civilian vehicle Charge Sentinel 20 m/s because all cars around were destroyed (happens often enough) and medium item (no movement speed bypass so 3 m/s)


Team 1:

5 minutes - 5s travel ft travel (walking with an item is about 2-3m/s) - (lets just assume max travel speed the whole time) "300/20 = 15s You add in player interaction with players and environment etc lets say closer to 25s which is reasonable)

so you get there with ~4:33 minutes to fight over the objective location feeling like you actually may have a chance needing more than 5 seconds on the clock to move to the next objective. Those 5 seconds are "dead time". So you have to fight with a realistic ~4:28s of that 4:33 to move to the next objective. This seems fair right? (You generally have to clear out a team once here, however car spawns and open areas can make that 2x+)

Dead time: (Aka time on clock from 0 where you "actually" lose at) 4-5 seconds because you have to move it to point.

Team 2:

Time away from the objective matters MORE than any time at the objective. You might not understand why but it really is summed down to this - You still have to get to the objective, and likely, have to face enemy/player/environment interference in between or/and at the objective as well. Where if you clear out an enemy team once there you can generally complete the objective, with team 1. With team 2, that's not generally the case. You have to end up clearing out the enemy team 2x to 3X, maybe even that amount at both points meaning, a full clear 4X (Which I've had happen before. That's also discounting if the objective is in the open to be shot from spawning enemies w/ snipers etc and car spawns making i. but we'll pretend that realistic situation doesn't exist in this example.)

 
You just get the obj, move it 15m, team dies from enemies pushing back in and they start camping the obj.

5m-5s= 4:55 Re spawn is ~10 seconds (may be 8s? lets go with 10s) 4:45

4:45 Team spawns, it now takes 3-15 seconds to find a vehicle/spawner, another ~3-5 to get in. That's 4:25- 4:39 on the clock. By now you could be fighting at the point.

  Let's say an accurate spawn is 120m (dependent on numerous factors such as teamate location, death location, objective location, etc) say 120m spawn so 120/20 with travel time = 6s so

4:19-4:29 (that's to point, that's not generally what happens either because combat time!)
 
Initiate combat. You generally don't succeed in the first 1-2 waves, as the defending team has once again hunkered down on defense of the previous area that could have taken 2-4 minutes to take the first time. So that's another 20s of spawning and ~30-45 seconds adding in getting vehicles and travel, excluding actual combat time!

Timer now is at 3:20-4:00. Dead time from this location? If you still haven't broken the enemy defenses ~25-35s (using estimates from before for travel) and accounting vehicle time to get to obj, in and get going etc. That's roughly half a minute that you just "lose" at. There's no real fighting for that time, no real chance at winning in it. It's literally sitting there at a football game and watching the last 10 minutes be wasted via "timeouts" i.e. extremely booorriiing.

Let's say you do break it, you do get the obj, and get it to the next point. Congrats, the enemy team is there because they had a car spawn in between and plenty of time to set up. If they aren't congrats! GTF out of there because they'll do it aaaaalll again :insert eyeroll here:. If not?

You now have:

2:45s to 3:35s to break their defense and that's even being generous, because I didn't even account for ANY combat time before this moment.


Defense is already an issue, it's already complained about as being too easy due to spawns, and openness of objectives. This "tactic" isn't fun to face, and its certainly not fair nor competitive to create a massive WALL of dead time. Most matches are already in the defenses favor, and then you add THIS?! ontop of it? And then call it competitive?! HOW?!

 

Maybe you have a completely different view of competitiveness than I do, one where one team should always have a clear advantage not once, but twice or more than the other team despite both teams having equal ability. Maybe that's the case. If so fine, but at the very least understand why I see this "tactic" as something that shouldn't be done/should be removed at the least. You don't have to like my reasoning behind it, but it's not something that I can agree with doing myself nor supporting because I wholeheartedly do not believe that it is balanced nor sportsmanlike to do, let alone truly "competitive" for whatever worth that word has to me anymore and I certainly don't believe that it adds to the "re-playability" of the game for many players.
 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Noob_Guardian
Clarification