What defines a "tryhard"?

[Bambola 379]

Tryhard, that would be me rushing an OCA Whisper user with mu Snub. 

[MonkaS 215]

1 hour ago, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA said:

balancing =/= removing, but nice try

 

we've seen that missions can be removed, so if the running mission was unintended it would be removed

 

we've seen that vip/item slowdowns can be altered to the point of not even having to be in the vehicle, so if running was unintended they would simply be increased until vehicles could no longer move or even disable vip/item and vehicle interaction entirely

unbalanced = unintended. devs never intended for something to be unbalanced in a pvp game.

Edited October 20, 2020 by MonkaS

[vsb 6171]

48 minutes ago, MonkaS said:

unbalanced = unintended. devs never intended for something to be unbalanced in a pvp game.

all that would mean is that running was intended and it just wasnt intended to be too effective, hence the balancing instead of outright removal

 

after all just because a gun gets nerfed doesnt mean the devs want it removed from the game

[MonkaS 215]

23 minutes ago, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA said:

all that would mean is that running was intended and it just wasnt intended to be too effective, hence the balancing instead of outright removal

 

after all just because a gun gets nerfed doesnt mean the devs want it removed from the game

no it wasn't intended to be effective at all. Also when I said car gameplay I meant using a vehicle like a second health bar which was broken af before the vehicle nerf since hard damage ≠ health damage.  

[vsb 6171]

1 minute ago, MonkaS said:

no it wasn't intended to be effective at all. Also when I said car gameplay I meant using a vehicle like a second health bar which was broken af before the vehicle nerf since hard damage ≠ health damage.  

if it wasnt intended at all then it would be removed, you're just going in circles at this point

 

carplay is a good example of exactly the same kind of balance - lower tank vehicle hp and a downside added to HBF to make the mechanic both more risky and less rewarding, without completely removing vehicles as a source of cover

[MonkaS 215]

2 hours ago, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA said:

if it wasnt intended at all then it would be removed, you're just going in circles at this point

 

carplay is a good example of exactly the same kind of balance - lower tank vehicle hp and a downside added to HBF to make the mechanic both more risky and less rewarding, without completely removing vehicles as a source of cover

again unintended can = unbalanced and often does. You and noob_guardian seem to keep thinking this is a black and white issue it isn't and I never said it was. You just inflated the meaning of unintended to needing to be removed entirely or patched out.

[vsb 6171]

19 hours ago, MonkaS said:

again unintended can = unbalanced and often does. You and noob_guardian seem to keep thinking this is a black and white issue it isn't and I never said it was. You just inflated the meaning of unintended to needing to be removed entirely or patched out.

thats just you massacring the english language then, because when something is unintended it means that thing is unintended, not something else

 

so when you say 

On 10/15/2020 at 4:28 PM, MonkaS said:

running with item or as vip wasn't intended 

its no wonder people misunderstand you because that quote means running was not supposed to be possible at all, not that running was unbalanced 

 

no one goes around saying "the pmg was unintended"

 

 

 

[MonkaS 215]

22 minutes ago, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA said:

thats just you massacring the english language then, because when something is unintended it means that thing is unintended, not something else

 

so when you say 

its no wonder people misunderstand you because that quote means running was not supposed to be possible at all, not that running was unbalanced 

 

no one goes around saying "the pmg was unintended"

 

 

 

Do I really need to add "the effectiveness" was unintended? Do you lack the mental mental faculties to read in between the lines?

[vsb 6171]

1 minute ago, MonkaS said:

Do I really need to add "the effectiveness" was unintended? Do you lack the mental mental faculties to read in between the lines?

yeah when you come out of the gate saying entire mechanics like running and carplay are unintended it helps to actually say what you mean

[Acornie 490]

Som one who tries hard, damn, ask some harder questions next time.

[Omega101 16]

1. ok from reading all of the post, most believe that a tryhard is some one that is actually trying to play the game?  has no one player any other shooter?   

all shooters are supposed the be full out  attack/defend.   Can you imagine someone not trying to play, or playing casually in COD,BF, CS, ring or any other shooter?  If you are not wanting to play then don't log on, or go play something that does not affect other member of your team. There are lot of solo games out there.

 

2. Read the mission statements, they all say something like "keep the item away" "Protect the vip" Hold the item" etc...  (go play any other game that has items/vips to escort.)

This does not say or mean "fight over the object in the middle of the street like a moron"  This has always meant, take the item and keep it safe/from the enemy. So running with an object has always been the way you are meant to play.  That why you can lean out of vehicles and car surf.  Running with an object/vip to at least a spot you could defend  was how the game was designed from the beginning.  

 

It was not until cheats figured out that they could farm that you started seeing the players ignore the mission instructions, the result was that, not running started to happen.

[Killer Rabbit 71]

Car chases were always a thing.

 

Back in the early days of APB the last stage on some missions was literally a car chase where you had to not hit anything or the "escape countdown" would pause for a bit. 

There was no slowdown mechanic either, and we could catch up with the enemy just fine by knowing the city layout, predicting where they are likely to go and intercepting. (This is before the days of car surfer which suddenly allowed heavy weapons and rocket launchers to be used from vehicles, which is the real source of the current car chase problems if you ask me, but that's a whole other topic)

 

So if you want to talk about what was "intended", then yes. Driving around and preventing the enemy team from getting the item was most definitely 100% intended.

 

Unfortunately, just like most people can't aim, they also can't drive. So they sit here and cry "nerf the NTEC" "nerf the driving" "stop tryharding".

[Ilyas 15]

The only thing that really bothers me is when someone plays with percs and NFAS/SMG espacially for a max rank. Ghosting for clan mates is annoying and unfaair but that is not that common with limited pop.

Otherwise it's all good.

[DeadPixels 253]

On 10/19/2020 at 11:31 AM, Killer Rabbit said:

No, you are called scrubs because you are arguing with reality.

 

I don't care what you think the original game designers "intent" was on how the game "was meant to be played".

The only thing that matters is how the game is played.

 

You can accept reality for what it is, or you can continue living in disappointment for the rest of your life.

Learn to play the game how it is actually played instead of getting angry at the opposition for not abiding by some rules you made up on what is allowed.

Arguing with reality....because i want things to get better?

 

All i typed was that i want the game to be more balanced, but whenever somebody complains about something on the forums there's people like you who tell them stop crying and git gud scrub. I think LO did a lot great changes since they acquired APB, but there are still things that need to be tweaked. I do accept the reality and even if a weapon that i personally love playing is in need of some changes, i tell my honest opinion about it. If people like you would be managing the game, we would probably still have p2w weapons.

 

Maybe you and your clan should accept reality. If you look at Wasp standards - having a respectable attitude towards the rest of the game community. If you look at most APB applications players state under ''What does 'playing honourably' mean to you?'' - Respect other players and play fair. This one is interesting: Playing honourably' for me means that you should always play fair even if your enemies are laming the mission (playing cheap = using nfas, demo weapons, heavy hvr, yolos, percs) you should overcome them by skill and not by choosing the low gameplay. And then when i played against you guys you were running on the last stage. I found it hilarious, i guess this is how the game was meant to be played right? XD

 

On 10/19/2020 at 3:02 PM, Cr0 said:

and all of those things got fixed. The mechanics will get changed if it is decided to do so. Some people wanted to keep for example the scout jump shooting but a final decision was made about removing it. So if it would have been kept, would the people who had been using it then have been abusing it in the past being called tryhards, but then no longer labeled tryhards when it was decided to be kept? It's impossible to juggle the unwritten rule balls like that all the time. That's why we should let the mechanics dictate, and if we don't like something then see if it can be changed, instead of looking down on those just playing the game they are served.

Yeah they got fixed, but only because players complained about it on the forums over and over again. I always loved the Scout and i'm glad they nerfed the jump shooting, because that thing made the weapon to good in some situations. If people who used it should be called tryhards or not is up to you to decide. I only mention this things because they were not meant to be in the game. Players found out about it and started using them. The interesting part is what happened when the Scout finally got changed. Players started using other weapons, you barely saw any scout for years until now. So clearly a little change can make things completely different in a game.

[Killer Rabbit 71]

1 hour ago, DeadPixels said:

you should always play fair even if your enemies are laming the mission (playing cheap = using nfas, demo weapons, heavy hvr, yolos, percs) you should overcome them by skill and not by choosing the low gameplay

Here you go again, making up rules. It's like you read what I wrote, but understood absolutely none of it.

 

On today's chapter of "How APB should be according to DeadPixels", using the base weapons that are available for everyone is lame. The game should only be played with the select few weapons DeadPixels has decreed as "fair". Anyone who chooses to use the most effective weapons not in accordance with these made up rules shall be branded a "tryhard" and flamed in chat. 

Also, let it be known henceforth that cars in a game where you are driving half of the time are lame.

 

DeadPixels has spoken!

 

[Cr0 328]

3 hours ago, DeadPixels said:

Yeah they got fixed, but only because players complained about it on the forums over and over again.

What do you mean by "but only because" people complained? that's how balancing works. We are supposed to give suggestions ("complain"). We tell the dev what we want and what is wrong and if enough people agree then it happens. It's useless complaining on the ones using whatever mechanic we don't like. What good does that do? Nothing.

So this way the mechanics are the actual rules based on our input. There is just a little delay. We can't have what we want right away.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Cr0

[Noob_Guardian 417]

On 10/19/2020 at 1:46 AM, Killer Rabbit said:

Did your mother drop you on the head as a baby?

No, my sister did.

 

On 10/19/2020 at 8:15 AM, Cr0 said:

See, your sort of reasoning is what changed my mind about this whole thing with "tryhards".

 

Veterans are trying to impose an invisible set of rules based on about a decade(!) of APB experience onto everyone else as though they are the center of the universe and decide what is allowed. You don't see a problem with that mindset?

How are players (especially new players) to know and follow all the time exactly what is meant/not "meant" to be possible to do, what is labeled lame etc?, especially as that is ever-changing. Maybe what pulled them into APB was exactly that they can do whatever they want in the world of APB. But then some cranky veterans came along and went "you can't do that". It's actually ridiculous when I think about it.
The only actual framework is the mechanics. Complain to the developers about whatever mechanics you want fixed instead of looking down on people for playing the game the way they want to.

 

 

"Veterans" are a broad range of players. Most of them that I know actually have Killer Rabbit's mindset of "if it's possible it's permissible". For example, i know i've bitched out plenty of "veterans" for literally farming new players (killing them until near end time of round, leaving/dying on purpose and continuing on in the match) but you know, it's possible so it must be okay???

 

Do I have an issue of invisible rulesets? Not particularly, every game has their own "rulesets" players put on themselves, whether competitively or casually. No riot shields, banning "x character or gun" in competitive matchups, no farming newbies in newbie zones, no explosives, etc. Such invisible rules exist in pretty much every game to some degree. Does everyone listen to them all the time? Nope, that's when you have to work around it (Riotshield meet molotov). However, they tend to exist in almost every game to a degree for the sole purpose of general player enjoyment, and fair competitive match-ups. Why is it an issue then, that a general playbase identify things themselves that allow fair and competitive match-ups/fun casual matches? There isn't.

 

Considering that no-one has had issues with knowing what's lame or not in any game, let alone APB, especially when the "what's lame" hasn't actually changed in APB for like 6 years, i consider that a non issue.

 

APB is about customization "be what you can't be", its not "do whatever you want". Most "cranky vets" can easily pub stomp any "newbie" that tries to do "whatever they want" regardless. So the "real" issue you are talking about is youself being told by other vets that "you shouldn't do that".

 

I've complained plenty about the mechanics, as they've been broken for ages. You know that just as well as I do "as a Vet" that there's a number of mechanic issues that have yet to be addressed because of the removal of some feature, or the lack of being able to "fix" the actual problem.

[Cr0 328]

3 hours ago, Noob_Guardian said:

"Veterans" are a broad range of players. Most of them that I know actually have Killer Rabbit's mindset of "if it's possible it's permissible". For example, i know i've bitched out plenty of "veterans" for literally farming new players (killing them until near end time of round, leaving/dying on purpose and continuing on in the match) but you know, it's possible so it must be okay???

Because people do not agree on what is okay or not, all you can do is abide by the same ruleset, which is what the game mechanics allow you to do.

 

You're playing with self imposed restrictions which you chose and are blaming others for not following.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Cr0

[Killer Rabbit 71]

10 hours ago, Noob_Guardian said:

Not particularly, every game has their own "rulesets" players put on themselves

And every game has players who call others "tryhards" and try to shame them into playing the game under some made up ruleset that they deemed "fair" and "honorable".

Correlation?

 

[Noob_Guardian 417]

15 hours ago, Killer Rabbit said:

And every game has players who call others "tryhards" and try to shame them into playing the game under some made up ruleset that they deemed "fair" and "honorable".

Correlation?

 

If you can't see the correlation of a fair and equal playing field and such "invisible rulesets" it's either you're too ignorant to give a fuck, or too stupid to know them in the first place. I'm not obligated to inform you of such correlation, because you honestly don't care about it in the first place.

 

22 hours ago, Cr0 said:

Because people do not agree on what is okay or not, all you can do is abide by the same ruleset, which is what the game mechanics allow you to do.

 

You're playing with self imposed restrictions which you chose and are blaming others for not following.

 

So farming new players is socially and permissible by GM's because the game mechanics allow it to happen? cool, i'll mark that in my "tacticool notebook" of things to follow when I wish to destroy the game population further.

 

"2. Player may not engage in any conduct or communication while using the APB Reloaded Services which is unlawful or which restricts or inhibits any other Player from using or enjoying these Services."

 

hmm....

 

Every game glitch and exploit that exists, game mechanics allow you to do. Everything from farming new players to other unsavory things is capable in game. Saying that "mechanics allow it so it's permissible" is too broad a statement to be taken as a serious game play tactic It's also why the COC exists, as despite such things being "mechanically possible" it also means that you as a player have the obligation not to do so.

 

"15. Abuse or exploit bugs, undocumented features, loopholes, design errors or problems in the game. Player acknowledges and agrees to report all problems, errors or bugs in the game to APB Reloaded as soon as they are found as their continued use can damage the enjoyment of the game for all its players. Those users caught cheating may suffer suspension from the APB Reloaded game, or manipulation of their character to remedy the game abuse. Please be considerate at all times of other members playing APB Reloaded. APB Reloaded will use diligent efforts to fix these types of issues in a timely manner, and will give all customers the benefit of the doubt when dealing with these problems."

 

The CoC also means that you as a player also have an obligation to attempt to not to bypass any ingame mechanics. Such as bypass speed limitations, and items in walls, players in places they shouldn't be, etc.

 

It seems that people who say "it's possible so it should be done" reaaaally don't understand what they agreed to in the EULA/CoC. Said "limitations" have some form of backing, and those against them, don't actually care about their little "I accept" agreements to play.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Noob_Guardian

[Cr0 328]

2 hours ago, Noob_Guardian said:

If you can't see the correlation of a fair and equal playing field and such "invisible rulesets" it's either you're too ignorant to give a fuck, or too stupid to know them in the first place. I'm not obligated to inform you of such correlation, because you honestly don't care about it in the first place.

 

So farming new players is socially and permissible by GM's because the game mechanics allow it to happen? cool, i'll mark that in my "tacticool notebook" of things to follow when I wish to destroy the game population further.

 

"2. Player may not engage in any conduct or communication while using the APB Reloaded Services which is unlawful or which restricts or inhibits any other Player from using or enjoying these Services."

 

hmm....

 

Every game glitch and exploit that exists, game mechanics allow you to do. Everything from farming new players to other unsavory things is capable in game. Saying that "mechanics allow it so it's permissible" is too broad a statement to be taken as a serious game play tactic It's also why the COC exists, as despite such things being "mechanically possible" it also means that you as a player have the obligation not to do so.

 

"15. Abuse or exploit bugs, undocumented features, loopholes, design errors or problems in the game. Player acknowledges and agrees to report all problems, errors or bugs in the game to APB Reloaded as soon as they are found as their continued use can damage the enjoyment of the game for all its players. Those users caught cheating may suffer suspension from the APB Reloaded game, or manipulation of their character to remedy the game abuse. Please be considerate at all times of other members playing APB Reloaded. APB Reloaded will use diligent efforts to fix these types of issues in a timely manner, and will give all customers the benefit of the doubt when dealing with these problems."

 

The CoC also means that you as a player also have an obligation to attempt to not to bypass any ingame mechanics. Such as bypass speed limitations, and items in walls, players in places they shouldn't be, etc.

 

It seems that people who say "it's possible so it should be done" reaaaally don't understand what they agreed to in the EULA/CoC. Said "limitations" have some form of backing, and those against them, don't actually care about their little "I accept" agreements to play.

So you're saying you can kick someones patootie so badly in APB that it's considered breaking the EULA because it's restricting the other player from enjoying the game. Incredible.

Everyone who ruins my fun is "restricting me from enjoying the service" (game). Kick em out!

Never become a GM. PLEASE.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Cr0

[Killer Rabbit 71]

6 hours ago, Noob_Guardian said:

[ a bunch of nonsense ]

Holy crap, you're dumb. I can't help you.

Enjoy being the victim, I guess.

[Noob_Guardian 417]

On 10/22/2020 at 9:50 PM, Cr0 said:

So you're saying you can kick someones patootie so badly in APB that it's considered breaking the EULA because it's restricting the other player from enjoying the game. Incredible.

Everyone who ruins my fun is "restricting me from enjoying the service" (game). Kick em out!

Never become a GM. PLEASE.

Pretty sure banning dethreaters and mission AFKers is part of Rule 2. Just as mission griefing/blocking. Why "shouldn't" intentionally farming new players fall under it? They won't ban anyone who's clearly playing fair, not cheating, not breaking CoC, and playing "in the spirit of the game" as per LO has stated. Is "Farming new players" in the "spirit of the game"? I'd argue that farming people in general, actually isn't, is gameplay enjoyability for the community a "bad thing"? I think you have either taken what I said wrong, or you strongly believe that farming a bunch of newbies for 35 kills a match+ (not talking fight club) is permissible.

 

Do understand, I'm not saying one cannot camp items in tough spots, nor that they cannot/should not "run" in missions. That's fair game. I'm simply saying that bypassing design loopholes/glitches (medium item ms exploit), farming new players, and such, are things that are defined by the CoC and EULA, as things not permissible. If you wish to object, feel free to, but also understand, the game's CoC and EULA are pretty clear.

 

On 10/23/2020 at 1:35 AM, Killer Rabbit said:

Holy crap, you're dumb. I can't help you.

Enjoy being the victim, I guess.

*points out literal rules in the CoC and EULA*

 

"OMG YeR a StUpId ViCtiM!"

 

Who's the real victim, the one following the rules or the one breaking them? I suppose I am the victim then for attempting to play "in the spirit of the game" against those who do not follow them for a clear advantage.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Noob_Guardian

[CookiePuss 5378]

12 minutes ago, Noob_Guardian said:

farming new players...

... things that are defined by the CoC and EULA, as things not permissible.

You cant be serious. 

This is next level ridiculousness,  even from you.

[Noob_Guardian 417]

20 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

You cant be serious. 

This is next level ridiculousness,  even from you.

So you're saying dethreating to farm new players is permissible? Or only that "farming new players" is in the spirit of the game? I mean, if you think farming new players is socially "okay" and a healthy mindset to play this game by, then by all means admit it. We know that dethreating which is literally done to farm newbies is bannable, wouldn't that hold true for the "reason" of dethreating as well?

 

I'm not talking about "just playing and killing new players and winning". I'm talking about literally "farming" them for roles by intentionally making the matches last longer than they normally would and by all means "should have" lasted. Is that okay to do? Do you think LO believes that it's in their best interest to "encourage" that type of gameplay? (Aka, you 100% would have won on stage 1/2 if you didn't keep letting them get the objectives in the last 30 seconds or so until final stage 6 and 40 kills later.)

 

It's a simple yes or no. Are we trying to encourage game growth as a community, or are we hoping to stomp it out further by "doing what's mechanically possible so it must be okay"? (Because that's the discussion you just walked into)

 

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by Noob_Guardian