Why Increasing Vehicle Spawn & Ammo Cost Would Have Been Good for APB

[Someone 1]

  This is a fairly simple but radical suggestion so hear me out and please set aside the effect of players who have at present accumulated vast sums of money.

The potential ramifications of this change to the game's entire meta is probably larger than I am capable of dissecting. 

 

Money should be a balancing factor for weapons and vehicles so that the "bad" guns and cars are profitable to use while the "best" weapons and cars sink money.

Therefore all Ammo, Grenades, and Vehicle Spawn cost should be multiplied by 10.

7,500 Rounds of 9mm ammo would cost $7,000 instead of $700.

4,500 Rounds of Rifle ammo would cost $15,000 instead of $1,500.

100 Frag Grenades would cost $8,000.

1,200 40mm Grenade Rounds $120,000.

Rockets become $1000 a round.

Half-Brick/Eight-Ball stay $1 each.

Tier 4 vehicles like the Vegas, Pioneer, and Mikro cost $1,000 to spawn.

Tier 3 vehicles like the Fresno, T-25, and Moirai cost $500 to spawn.

Tier 2 vehicles like the Broadwing, Sentinel, and Montane cost $250.

Tier 1 cars like the Calabria, Varzuga, and Han Veo remain free to spawn.

This is just a few of the things which would see an increase to cost.

 

  Right now the cost of spawning in vehicles and buying ammo is negligible, Nobody thinks about how their choice of vehicle or weapons is going to hurt their wallet.

People do consider how those choices affect their performance in a mission, Like whether their shotgun fits the situation or if their Vegas can carry an object. 

By increasing the cost of vehicles by a factor of 10 or more, Players gain a reason to use "lower tier" vehicles without having to buff them all into equality.

Vehicles that are free to spawn gain a real niche by being readily spawned and destroyed with little consideration.

 

  By allowing players to lose money while winning missions because their prolific use of machine guns and muscle cars is more expensive than the opposition's shotguns and SUVs,

The game gains another means to balance not just the meta between weapons and vehicles but also how and when players choose to use them.

Take time-to-kill for example, There has been much talk about what it should be built around how that makes the game play.

Instead of simply increasing the TTK why not give players a reason to measure the use of deadlier weapons with the cost of operation relative to the strength of opposition?

 

  Perhaps when every rocket costs $1000, Missing the OSMAW will become unappealing and even undesirable to use against lesser armed players or cheap vehicles.

Trying to finish missions armed with only handguns might become a thing as players decide the cost savings is worth waiting for when the expensive gun is necessary.

Grenade spam could definitely be cut down quite a bit when every grenade you hurl puts a $80 to $150 dent in your wallet.

 

  Non-mission activities such as mugging, ram-raiding, chop-shopping, witnessing, and impounding stolen goods/vehicles might need the profit per-item/action increased as well.

APB is designed to have players flow between doing activities to make money and missions for contact progression, Without the possibly of losing money doing missions it doesn't work. 

Regular contact missions have always been the best way to make money in the game compared to the other methods available which carry more risk. 

Requiring players to play cheaply to make good profit doing missions makes the other means of making money become more lucrative by comparison.

The lack of incentive for non-mission actives causes the overplaying of missions which makes players feel burned out, This hurts the game quite a bit.

 

 

  I really could go on and on about the potential ramifications this change could bring during gameplay but I cannot summarize it.

If economy becomes a gameplay consideration there predictably could be issue with how premium would give those players profit margins with expensive weapons F2Ps.

I imagine being forced post-patch to reset every players cash to deal with the possibly unbalancing effect of many players with huge sums of money endlessly playing very expensively.

Any playstyle F2P can't consider but must face can easily become P2W in many players eyes so I can see removing the enhanced money from premium.

 

  Also, With this change Light Machine Gun ammo should be removed and the weapons that use it changed to other types.

Submachine guns should be using 9mm/magnum ammo while light machine guns should be using rifle ammo.

Creating more types of ammo can be used to further refine any balance issues with specific weapons.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Someone

[Deadliest 385]

What is this Counter-strike economic system? This is an absurd system you put together for apb, would rather just play csgo at this point.
 

You only hurt the newbies with default guns and car, people save apb$ for stuff on the marketplace or purchase weapons rental. There’s going to be players with a lot of apb$, they don’t want them to be reseted. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Deadliest

[Someone 1]

What is absurd about it?  The economic system already exists in the game, Moving ammo and vehicle spawn cost up a decimal point is not a far fetched concept.

Lowering profit margins is nothing compared to game changing mechanics like mobile spawn, elective spawns, and weapons as retrievable items.

Consumable items are already in the price bracket needed ($2000 per box) to make players use them selectively.

 

New players wouldn't be affected the way you imply as the car they start with is free to spawn and the default guns don't need renting which improves their profit margins considerably.

Old/good players actually gain a reason to use so called "low tier" weapons and vehicles when facing new/bad players because its more profitable. 

Ram-raiding, mugging, and chop-shopping becomes meaningful when its profit margins stand out. 

LTL, impounding stolen cars/dropped goods becomes viable money making ventures for enforcers.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Someone

[Someone 1]

Why shouldn't money be a used to balance weapons and vehicles and alter player behavior? 

I feel like this game mechanic shouldn't be ignored like it has been for years.

[FartyBumBumGuff 107]

I mug to level 2x bonus then go ram raiding I can loot a million in a week. Even when I was constantly getting either APB'd or losing connection when I only had 7 million and thought that's the end of the money tree, I still had 8 million by the end of the week. It seems lucrative enough to me, way quicker to earn money than missions, I'd like it to give a bit more experience now I'm on the higher contacts, it can take 4 to 5 hours to gain 1 level out of 20. Missions can be hard work, you need to react fast when playing on wifi, you can't get many kills, you get 0.05 seconds to shoot someone before you're dead so it's not much quicker that way for me.  I found it hard to earn money and level up for the cop character, never managed to witness anything, barely ever managed to get anything for missions, I gave up on that.

Free Crack Vans, powered by SHITSTORM, Designed by FartyBumBumGuff.

Edited December 8, 2021 by FartyBumBumGuff

[Someone 1]

Are you suggesting that only Criminals would be able to afford a 10x increase to ammo and vehicle spawn cost because Criminals can mug/ram raid?

If so that tells me I'm right; But that Car Jacking/Impoundment that needs an increase to profitability and not Ram Raiding, While Mugging just needs the bounty system turned back on.

 

I'm late to Enforcer gameplay but I have a hard time finding anyone ram raiding, mugging, car jacking, or carrying around more than $2,500. 

I can find stolen cars to impound but I'm grinding contacts and not money right now, But as it is now it seems like a decent riskless farming method.

I would have more chances to witness if Criminals were forced to do those activities so they can afford to fight expensively with the "best" cars and guns.

 

 

[FartyBumBumGuff 107]

22 hours ago, Someone said:

Are you suggesting that only Criminals would be able to afford a 10x increase to ammo and vehicle spawn cost because Criminals can mug/ram raid?

If so that tells me I'm right; But that Car Jacking/Impoundment that needs an increase to profitability and not Ram Raiding, While Mugging just needs the bounty system turned back on.

 

I'm late to Enforcer gameplay but I have a hard time finding anyone ram raiding, mugging, car jacking, or carrying around more than $2,500. 

I can find stolen cars to impound but I'm grinding contacts and not money right now, But as it is now it seems like a decent riskless farming method.

I would have more chances to witness if Criminals were forced to do those activities so they can afford to fight expensively with the "best" cars and guns.

 

 

I played for a week as enforcer after the easter event was over. The tutorial said witness a crime but I didn't have a clue how, it just said witness a crime, no further instruction, cheers for that you twats, missions were impossible to get near a checkpoint because someone would blow me up with a grenade or rocket from the roof of a car seconds after spawning every single fucking time so I couldn't level up at all anymore, cheers for that you twats. I had no choice but to give up I was getting nowhere.

New cops are surprised when I let them APB me and take 10 or 20,000 and shoot me a dozen times, why you so nice? Because I know being a cop and levelling up is nearly impossible.

Edited December 12, 2021 by FartyBumBumGuff

[vsb 6171]

wouldn't work imo

1. punishes new and low skilled players
2. encourages a narrow meta
3. too easy to make money out of mission

[Someone 1]

#1 and #3 are contradictory.

If it's too easy to make money outside of missions then how does it punish new and low skilled players?

Players can always profit during missions despite being new or bad, The default guns are free and use the cheapest ammo while the default car is free to spawn.

 

#2 is merely a difference in perspective.

Most cars in the game have had no place at all in the meta because there is no reason to not always spawn the best-in-class vehicles.

Players currently have no reason to not always buy and use the "best" weapons in the game even on lesser skilled or equipped players.

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Someone

[neophobia 216]

no, they don't contradict each other. new players lose missions and would have to grind harder. players who already amounted masses of cash wouldn't really care all that much - and would probably win more often. doesn't matter if it's easy outside - and damn would it suck to not be able to play the main game but having to grind ram raiding more.

 

"players have no reason to not always buy and use the 'best' weapons in the game even against lower skilled players"

nor would they then. you buy the weapons for 10 days anyway, not on a mission base so you wouldn't know who you'd face, ammo costs are always the same too within one weapon type.

 

others than that, it would shift the game more towards p2w since paying players would face way less constraints and could adapt to every situation much more easily - especially if they bought 90% of armas *cough cough*. no thanks. i don't see any good pro argument but a lot of cons.

Edited December 13, 2021 by neophobia

[Someone 1]

4 hours ago, neophobia said:

no, they don't contradict each other. new players lose missions and would have to grind harder. players who already amounted masses of cash wouldn't really care all that much - and would probably win more often. doesn't matter if it's easy outside - and damn would it suck to not be able to play the main game but having to grind ram raiding more.

How often are new players losing because they are not using the best weapons and vehicles in the game?   I say not that often, At most they have the wrong weapon for the situation.

Again, New or bad players can always profit during missions because the default guns are free and use the cheapest ammo while the default car is free to spawn.

Old players having mounds of cash is a problem all MMORPG games face and the only way to solve it without resetting the economy is adding a money sink.

 

4 hours ago, neophobia said:

"players have no reason to not always buy and use the 'best' weapons in the game even against lower skilled players"

nor would they then. you buy the weapons for 10 days anyway, not on a mission base so you wouldn't know who you'd face, ammo costs are always the same too within one weapon type.

If I was asking for an increase to weapon rental cost you would have a point as players would be forced to "get their money's worth" out of a rented weapon to not throw money away. 

Making the ammo more expensive means players don't lose much money from having a wide arsenal, But over reliance on weapons which are best-in-class requires compromises.

Ammo type and thus cost does not have to be the same for every weapon within a class, It's a trivial and small change that adds another characteristic to balance weapons. 

 

4 hours ago, neophobia said:

others than that, it would shift the game more towards p2w since paying players would face way less constraints and could adapt to every situation much more easily - especially if they bought 90% of armas *cough cough*. no thanks. i don't see any good pro argument but a lot of cons.

Armas weapons don't have free ammo and the cost of weapon rental isn't high enough to create a big difference in profitability.

What permanent Armas weapons save is a players time as they won't have to grind weapon ranks to have a 3 slot weapon, Filling up those 3 slots then becomes a money sink itself.

Honestly a bigger issue for P2W is the money and symbol complexity bonus from premium accounts.

[vsb 6171]

11 hours ago, Someone said:

#1 and #3 are contradictory.

If it's too easy to make money outside of missions then how does it punish new and low skilled players?

1 and 3 aren't contradictory, a new player is going to be just as bad at customization as they are at shooting enemies

 

ramraiding and mugging are not only skewed almost entirely in favor of criminals but are also not engaging at all for most people, funneling new players into these activities so they can continue playing missions leads to a poor game experience imo

 

there are some smaller issues as well like new players starting with no money, or new players being much more likely to waste ammo in and out of missions

 

11 hours ago, Someone said:

Players can always profit during missions despite being new or bad, The default guns are free and use the cheapest ammo while the default car is free to spawn.

players do not always profit from missions, sometimes even when their team wins

 

you've only given the ammo costs for 2 ammo types, so its impossible to determine that they would be the cheapest

 

the starter weapons and vehicle being the easiest to maintain encourages or forces, depending on how able a new player is to keep up with costs, new players to continue using them, again widening the gap between new players and veterans

 

 

12 hours ago, Someone said:

#2 is merely a difference in perspective.

Most cars in the game have had no place at all in the meta because there is no reason to not always spawn the best-in-class vehicles.

Players currently have no reason to not always buy and use the "best" weapons in the game even on lesser skilled or equipped players.

i suppose it does come down to perspective, you see increased cost as a reason to use cheaper items where i see increased cost as a reason to only use the most effective items in order to maximize gains - i think a large portion of the community would also share my perspective, and so many people using strictly meta loadouts will naturally push their opponents to do the same

 

im also unclear on how this would actually affect weapon use, an ntec and a misery both use the same ammo type, so how does cost enter in to the decision to use one or the other?

[Someone 1]

On 12/13/2021 at 12:54 PM, glaciers said:

1 and 3 aren't contradictory, a new player is going to be just as bad at customization as they are at shooting enemies

 

ramraiding and mugging are not only skewed almost entirely in favor of criminals but are also not engaging at all for most people, funneling new players into these activities so they can continue playing missions leads to a poor game experience imo

Not everyone who starts APB is bad at shooting, Like they have never played a shooter before.

 

I completely disagree that ramraiding and mugging heavily favoring Criminals over Enforcers, Farming empty servers does not compensate for always getting ambushed and losing work.

A major reason why non-mission activities are not found to be engaging is from contact missions being profitable enough that it makes these activities feel like a waste of time.

Which means Criminals pretty much always raid solo and rarely to play the game of cat-and-mouse/hide-and-seek/risk-vs-reward that made it interesting.

Factors for crime such as the bounty system at Notoriety 5 is currently disabled and the Notoriety/Prestige intra-mission system which was a core part of the game cycle is also gone.

 

Meanwhile Enforcer players rarely even look for raiders, car jackers, and muggers let alone mange to witness them because so few players do those activities.

Most Enforcers also don't know you can impound stolen cars for easy money on any populated server, But contact missions make it feel like a complete waste of time.

 

On 12/13/2021 at 12:54 PM, glaciers said:

there are some smaller issues as well like new players starting with no money, or new players being much more likely to waste ammo in and out of missions

 

players do not always profit from missions, sometimes even when their team wins

Simply make free ammo for the default guns if it turns out that bad, Even if the default guns didn't get free ammo players always easily earn ammo money.

Just mug people or impound some stolen cars and you'll have your lunch money for ammo, Increasing profit on activates is also an available option. 

Hand grenades would be a bigger money sink than ammo, But people have wanted grenade spawn gone for a long time and this could solve it forever.

Right now players only fail to make profit on a mission because they hadn't completed any objectives or earned any medals, The only time players lose money in a mission is due to demerit medals.

 

On 12/13/2021 at 12:54 PM, glaciers said:

you've only given the ammo costs for 2 ammo types, so its impossible to determine that they would be the cheapest

I gave ammo costs for 4 types of weapons which showed the difference in scale between cheap and expensive ammo.

I also stated that more types of ammo should be made so each weapon can be balanced for its cost-of-use.

 

On 12/13/2021 at 12:54 PM, glaciers said:

the starter weapons and vehicle being the easiest to maintain encourages or forces, depending on how able a new player is to keep up with costs, new players to continue using them, again widening the gap between new players and veterans

The default weapons are not so bad that they cannot compete with guns of the same type, In fact the FBW is considered one of the best sidearms in the game.

The default car isn't the only vehicle that is free to spawn, Increasing the cost to spawn vehicles encourages players to preserve a vehicle the more expensive it is to spawn.

It would make Remote Detonator unappealing to use with a high tier vehicle and encourage players to park high tier vehicles with mobile spawn more conservatively.

Right now players don't usually consider buying lower tier vehicles as their one advantage (cost to spawn) over higher tier counterparts isn't sufficiently influential.  

 

On 12/13/2021 at 12:54 PM, glaciers said:

i suppose it does come down to perspective, you see increased cost as a reason to use cheaper items where i see increased cost as a reason to only use the most effective items in order to maximize gains - i think a large portion of the community would also share my perspective, and so many people using strictly meta loadouts will naturally push their opponents to do the same

Whatever gains a player is maximizing by using the most effective weapons and vehicles which are the most expensive to use depends on what they are doing.

With contact missions the player is trading mission profitability for enhanced capabilities to earn contact reputation through better performance.

With witness missions Criminals and Enforcers have different perspectives.

Criminals don't lose profitability using the expensive equipment as long as they don't get witnessed, While Enforces trade profitability for enhanced capabilities.

 

On 12/13/2021 at 12:54 PM, glaciers said:

im also unclear on how this would actually affect weapon use, an ntec and a misery both use the same ammo type, so how does cost enter in to the decision to use one or the other?

Again, In the very first post I stated that creating more ammo types would allow further refinement of balance issues found with specific weapons.

Though that might not be at all necessary as one might think, Ammo could already be for guns what tiers stand for when spawning a vehicle. 

 

Even based on current cost-per-round basis weapons could be split into tiers like vehicles:

Pistol ammo and Machine Gun ammo is the cheapest meaning any weapon that uses it is tier 1 ($0.09/$0.13)

Weapon that use Less-Than-Lethal Pistol ammo would be tier 2 ($0.25) 

Weapon that use Rifle and Magnum ammo are both tier 2 ($0.33/$0.40)

Weapon that use Generic Less-Than-Lethal ammo would be tier 2 ($0.50)

Weapon that use Shotgun shells and High-velocity Rifle ammo tier 3 ($0.80/$0.87)

Weapon that use Flares, 40mm Grenades, and Hand Grenades make up tier 4 ($5-$15)

Rockets are their own tier like how the Mhuller M1 is when chop shopped/impounded. ($100/$50)

 

Machine Gun and Pistol ammo should be renamed to "Long Pistol" and "Short Pistol" ammo respectively, Many weapons that use it should be changed to use another ammo type.  

Even if ammo prices increased 10x I don't think those weapon would break when they switched ammo type because its another means to balance these various weapons. 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Someone
major refinement

[vsb 6171]

On 12/13/2021 at 11:51 PM, Someone said:

[text]

a lot of this boils down to making players choose between mission performance and saving money, but choosing mission performance can (and likely will) lead to it being impossible to continue to choose mission performance without being funneled into other activities - essentially punishing players for consistently performing at their best

 

 

 

On 12/13/2021 at 11:51 PM, Someone said:

Again, In the very first post I stated that creating more ammo types would allow further refinement of balance issues found with specific weapons.

Though that might not be at all necessary as one might think, Ammo could already be for guns what tiers stand for when spawning a vehicle. 

 

Even based on current cost-per-round basis weapons could be split into tiers like vehicles:

Pistol ammo and Machine Gun ammo is the cheapest meaning any weapon that uses it is tier 1 ($0.09/$0.13)

Weapon that use Less-Than-Lethal Pistol ammo would be tier 2 ($0.25) 

Weapon that use Rifle and Magnum ammo are both tier 2 ($0.33/$0.40)

Weapon that use Generic Less-Than-Lethal ammo would be tier 2 ($0.50)

Weapon that use Shotgun shells and High-velocity Rifle ammo tier 3 ($0.80/$0.87)

Weapon that use Flares, 40mm Grenades, and Hand Grenades make up tier 4 ($5-$15)

Rockets are their own tier like how the Mhuller M1 is when chop shopped/impounded. ($100/$50)

 

Machine Gun and Pistol ammo should be renamed to "Long Pistol" and "Short Pistol" ammo respectively, Many weapons that use it should be changed to use another ammo type.  

Even if ammo prices increased 10x I don't think those weapon would break when they switched ammo type because its another means to balance these various weapons. 

tiering categories like this doesn't make much sense for performance-based cost (opgl/osmaw being t4 despite not even being meta?), something already seen with vehicles, with the pioneer and mikro in the same tier despite significant performance differences

 

i think you'd need each weapon to use its own specific ammo and each vehicle to have its own unique spawn cost for this kind of balancing to work, which is too much extra complication imo

[Someone 1]

10 hours ago, glaciers said:

a lot of this boils down to making players choose between mission performance and saving money, but choosing mission performance can (and likely will) lead to it being impossible to continue to choose mission performance without being funneled into other activities - essentially punishing players for consistently performing at their best

Why should it be convenient for players to utilize the best weapons and vehicles all the time?  Why should we assume what it does for the game is good?   

 

Players still earn contact reputation even if they lose, They would only lose money if they chose to risk outspending their earnings for winning/losing the mission.

Playing for performance is to sprinting as playing for sustainability is to jogging, Its hard to win a marathon by sprinting just as its hard to win a dash by jogging.

Losing a race against someone who has the skills to sprint through an entire marathon when you can only jog is only punishing when you chose to wager money on it.

 

10 hours ago, glaciers said:

tiering categories like this doesn't make much sense for performance-based cost (opgl/osmaw being t4 despite not even being meta?), something already seen with vehicles, with the pioneer and mikro in the same tier despite significant performance differences

OSMAW and OPGL are very good at what they do and which no other weapon can even emulate, New players have long complained about having to fight players with these weapons.

A weapon's type doesn't just determine how viable it is in any given situation but also how it changes the performance of your teammates and the map's meta.

 

Rifles are tier 2 because they can compete with weapons that can potentially outclass them while outclassing weapons not as flexible as them.

Submachine guns are mostly tier 1 because they can't compete outside of short range, The Submachine guns that can use tier 2 Magnum ammo instead.

As CQC weapons Shotguns have many inherently large advantages over Submachine guns, Which is why Shotgun ammo is tier 3 and most SMGs use tier 1 ammo.

High-velocity Rifles are tier 3 ammo as they outclass anything they can outrange and their shorter range pitfalls are more easily compensated for from a players sidearm. 

Machine guns such as the SHAW and its like use ether tier 2 Rifle ammo while the ALIG and its clones use tier 3 High-velocity Rifle ammo.

 

I don't understand the supposed performance differences between the Pioneer and Mikro, They drive differently but not enough for me to say one was better than the other.

Do you think players should have a reason to consider using lower tier vehicles, Or do you not care that conservatively speaking players never buy and use 60% of vehicles in the game?

Outside of pointlessly buffing every vehicle into equivalency, Increasing the cost to spawn is the only way to make lower tier vehicles viable choices over the popular high vehicles.

 

10 hours ago, glaciers said:

i think you'd need each weapon to use its own specific ammo and each vehicle to have its own unique spawn cost for this kind of balancing to work, which is too much extra complication imo

Most low tier vehicles perform quite well even compared outside their tier, But the cost disadvantage for using a high tier vehicle is too low to affect the player's choice when it should.

Making new types of ammo for every weapon and balancing each with its own price would be less work than adjusting every characteristics of every weapon until they're all "balanced".

 

Imagine what problems the game would have if consumable items like Med Spray cost $200 instead of $2000 and you get an idea of the effect cheap ammo and vehicle spawn has been.

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Someone

[vsb 6171]

12 hours ago, Someone said:

Why should it be convenient for players to utilize the best weapons and vehicles all the time?  Why should we assume what it does for the game is good?   

 

Players still earn contact reputation even if they lose, They would only lose money if they chose to risk outspending their earnings for winning/losing the mission.

Playing for performance is to sprinting as playing for sustainability is to jogging, Its hard to win a marathon by sprinting just as its hard to win a dash by jogging.

Losing a race against someone who has the skills to sprint through an entire marathon when you can only jog is only punishing when you chose to wager money on it.

it should be convenient because the entire point of the game is competition? if players are actively discouraged from playing their best, i'm not really sure what the point of pvp is

 

contact xp is irrelevant, the issue is cost/money and its effect on mission performance

 

the race metaphor doesn't really make sense because everyone is not starting from the same place, nor is every mission a self contained competition

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Someone said:

OSMAW and OPGL are very good at what they do and which no other weapon can even emulate, New players have long complained about having to fight players with these weapons.

A weapon's type doesn't just determine how viable it is in any given situation but also how it changes the performance of your teammates and the map's meta.

 

Rifles are tier 2 because they can compete with weapons that can potentially outclass them while outclassing weapons not as flexible as them.

Submachine guns are mostly tier 1 because they can't compete outside of short range, The Submachine guns that can use tier 2 Magnum ammo instead.

As CQC weapons Shotguns have many inherently large advantages over Submachine guns, Which is why Shotgun ammo is tier 3 and most SMGs use tier 1 ammo.

High-velocity Rifles are tier 3 ammo as they outclass anything they can outrange and their shorter range pitfalls are more easily compensated for from a players sidearm. 

Machine guns such as the SHAW and its like use ether tier 2 Rifle ammo while the ALIG and its clones use tier 3 High-velocity Rifle ammo.

 

I don't understand the supposed performance differences between the Pioneer and Mikro, They drive differently but not enough for me to say one was better than the other.

Do you think players should have a reason to consider using lower tier vehicles, Or do you not care that conservatively speaking players never buy and use 60% of vehicles in the game?

Outside of pointlessly buffing every vehicle into equivalency, Increasing the cost to spawn is the only way to make lower tier vehicles viable choices over the popular high vehicles.

new players complain about explosives because they don't have access to explosives, preventing them from learning the strengths and weaknesses

 

the tiering just doesnt make sense imo, even narrowing it down to weapon categories - nfas and jg are both the same tier? shaw and euryale? ntec and issra? opgl and eol? how are legendaries in general supposed to be tiered?

 

if you dont understand the differences between the pioneer and the mikro or the resulting effects on the meta im not sure you should be discussing balance

 

i do think its an issue that a large majority of apb vehicles are essentially ignored, but i disagree that buffing the unused vehicles is "pointless" and that making 3 pioneer spawns negate mission profit is the right way to balance things

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Someone said:

Most low tier vehicles perform quite well even compared outside their tier, But the cost disadvantage for using a high tier vehicle is too low to affect the player's choice when it should.

Making new types of ammo for every weapon and balancing each with its own price would be less work than adjusting every characteristics of every weapon until they're all "balanced".

 

Imagine what problems the game would have if consumable items like Med Spray cost $200 instead of $2000 and you get an idea of the effect cheap ammo and vehicle spawn has been.

most low tier vehicles do not perform well nor were they intended too, its a leftover from rtws attempt to force rpg progression into a pvp shooter

 

its just more work, even if ammo cost is increased as a balance mechanic weapon stats still have to balanced as well, cost cannot be the sole balancing factor

 

consumables have been free as mission rewards since they were implemented iirc, adding an additional way to get more didn't really do much either way for consumable issues

 

 

[Someone 1]

10 hours ago, glaciers said:

it should be convenient because the entire point of the game is competition? if players are actively discouraged from playing their best, i'm not really sure what the point of pvp is

Competition does not equal equity of equipment and certainly not in a game like APB.

 

10 hours ago, glaciers said:

contact xp is irrelevant, the issue is cost/money and its effect on mission performance

XP is not irrelevant in a game with progression, Just because its been so long since you had anything to unlock doesn't mean its not a core principle the game is built around.

 

10 hours ago, glaciers said:

the race metaphor doesn't really make sense because everyone is not starting from the same place, nor is every mission a self contained competition

No metaphor, I am pointing out that the correlation of increasing difficulty between "duration of effort" & "intensity of effort" is a natural consequence and not an imposed punishment. 

A player skilled enough with cheap weapons to overcome an enemy's skill with expensive weapons is rewarded with significant gains in profit, How is that not skill rewarding mechanism?

 

10 hours ago, glaciers said:

new players complain about explosives because they don't have access to explosives, preventing them from learning the strengths and weaknesses

So you think new players should get access to OSMAW and OPGL? 

According to what you say there is no point to PVP when the game actively prevents new players from playing exactly like old players.

 

10 hours ago, glaciers said:

the tiering just doesnt make sense imo, even narrowing it down to weapon categories - nfas and jg are both the same tier? shaw and euryale? ntec and issra? opgl and eol? how are legendaries in general supposed to be tiered?

Why does an idea need to "make sense" and what exactly is the problem with the weapons you stated? 

That ammo cost from weapons of the same type but of different characteristics would influence player choice?

 

10 hours ago, glaciers said:

if you dont understand the differences between the pioneer and the mikro or the resulting effects on the meta im not sure you should be discussing balance

My bad I had thought of the Packer Vaquero and not the Nulander Pioneer, I never thought to compare these two completely different class of vehicle.

Within 300 meters the Mikro and Vaquero will win any race against any other vehicle, Their acceleration allows drivers entering the vehicle to escape grenades before they explode.

 

10 hours ago, glaciers said:

i do think its an issue that a large majority of apb vehicles are essentially ignored, but i disagree that buffing the unused vehicles is "pointless" and that making 3 pioneer spawns negate mission profit is the right way to balance things

Buffing all of the underused vehicles so that players choose to use them is pointless in my book because that would make them all equivalent and thus boing to drive.

The only way to balance all of these vehicles without removing all the characteristics that make them unique is to make the price-to-spawn an important characteristic. 

 

10 hours ago, glaciers said:

most low tier vehicles do not perform well nor were they intended too, its a leftover from rtws attempt to force rpg progression into a pvp shooter

Its not a leftover feature of the game, Its an underdeveloped core principle of the game.

If they are meant to underperform then why do you want them buffed into equity so that players use them?

 

10 hours ago, glaciers said:

its just more work, even if ammo cost is increased as a balance mechanic weapon stats still have to balanced as well, cost cannot be the sole balancing factor

Most weapons are already mostly balanced through their other characteristics, Making ammo cost an important factor just balances the difference that remains.

 

10 hours ago, glaciers said:

consumables have been free as mission rewards since they were implemented iirc, adding an additional way to get more didn't really do much either way for consumable issues

Players don't earn enough free consumables to make it a self-sustaining process, They have to buy the consumables to make them a staple in their gameplay.

Edited December 17, 2021 by Someone

[vsb 6171]

17 hours ago, Someone said:

Competition does not equal equity of equipment and certainly not in a game like APB.

of course it does, especially in the context of pvp games, the entire point of balancing is to attempt to eliminate as many factors as possible to pare competition down to personal skill

 

if equity of equipment doesn't matter when it comes to apb then why are you even suggesting mechanics intended to balance different levels of equipment?

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Someone said:

XP is not irrelevant in a game with progression, Just because its been so long since you had anything to unlock doesn't mean its not a core principle the game is built around.

xp is irrelevant, neither your suggestion nor my issues with it are about xp

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Someone said:

No metaphor, I am pointing out that the correlation of increasing difficulty between "duration of effort" & "intensity of effort" is a natural consequence and not an imposed punishment. 

A player skilled enough with cheap weapons to overcome an enemy's skill with expensive weapons is rewarded with significant gains in profit, How is that not skill rewarding mechanism?

one of the problems i have is the reverse situation, when a player with expensive weapons "overcomes" an enemy with cheap weapons because he spent more money on armas, or more time ramraiding, or more time in social

 

cost based balancing stops being a skill rewarding mechanism when it no longer rewards purely for skill

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Someone said:

So you think new players should get access to OSMAW and OPGL? 

According to what you say there is no point to PVP when the game actively prevents new players from playing exactly like old players.

yes, i do think the progression system needs a significant overhaul to accommodate a fairer playing field when it comes to loadouts

 

 apb has consistently had a problem with balance and fair competition, stemming from multiple issues beyond just weapon or vehicle balance, and it shows in the population numbers - people don't like playing a pvp game when the pvp isn't fair

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Someone said:

Why does an idea need to "make sense" and what exactly is the problem with the weapons you stated? 

That ammo cost from weapons of the same type but of different characteristics would influence player choice?

why does an idea need to make sense? how is this even a question?

 

the problem with the weapons i listed is you've listed each pair as being in the same tier, yet they have significantly different places in the meta

 

if the intent is to influence player choice then its a failure, if a player is going to pay t2 ammo cost there's no reason for them to choose the issra over the ntec

 

 

 

18 hours ago, Someone said:

Buffing all of the underused vehicles so that players choose to use them is pointless in my book because that would make them all equivalent and thus boing to drive.

The only way to balance all of these vehicles without removing all the characteristics that make them unique is to make the price-to-spawn an important characteristic. 

its a bit silly to assume that just because all vehicles would be useful in some way that they'd all be exactly the same, its not like all the meta weapons play the same despite all being top choices for pvp

 

 

 

18 hours ago, Someone said:

Its not a leftover feature of the game, Its an underdeveloped core principle of the game.

If they are meant to underperform then why do you want them buffed into equity so that players use them?

its a leftover feature because its part of a different design ethos that apb has been moving away from, albeit slowly

 

just because the people who ruined apb intended for lower tier vehicles to underperform doesn't mean they need to continue underperforming

 

 

 

18 hours ago, Someone said:

Most weapons are already mostly balanced through their other characteristics, Making ammo cost an important factor just balances the difference that remains.

its extra work to reach the same place then, even ignoring the other problems cost balancing may introduce

 

 

 

18 hours ago, Someone said:

Players don't earn enough free consumables to make it a self-sustaining process, They have to buy the consumables to make them a staple in their gameplay.

this varies wildly depending on consumable use and player progression level, but its entirely possible to only use free consumables without worrying about inventory management

[Someone 1]

8 hours ago, glaciers said:

of course it does, especially in the context of pvp games, the entire point of balancing is to attempt to eliminate as many factors as possible to pare competition down to personal skill

Randomness is the only thing that eliminates personal skill from the equation, Fighting when the odds are stacked against you doesn't eliminate personal skill from the equation.

 

8 hours ago, glaciers said:

if equity of equipment doesn't matter when it comes to apb then why are you even suggesting mechanics intended to balance different levels of equipment?

The mechanic already exists!  Are you going to tell me that money serves no point in the game and there is currently no relationship between the cost of equipment and its relative performance?

 

8 hours ago, glaciers said:

xp is irrelevant, neither your suggestion nor my issues with it are about xp

How have your issues not included XP?  By your definition APB as a competitive PVP game should pare everything down to personal skill which would include access to every piece of equipment.

 

8 hours ago, glaciers said:

one of the problems i have is the reverse situation, when a player with expensive weapons "overcomes" an enemy with cheap weapons because he spent more money on armas, or more time ramraiding, or more time in social

What weapons currently in the game would give a player enough of an advantage to consistently win against an equally skilled but differently equipped opponent?

Are those weapons ARMAS exclusive?  How does making these superior weapons more expensive to use make them better?

 

Why should gameplay around Crime and Enforcement be so pointless? 

It's been a core part of the game since the games inception, before it was a F2P game, and before the current dev team touched it.

 

Why shouldn't it possibly matter how much time a player spends doing non-mission activities?

Social doesn't print money, You had to do something well enough to make a player part with their cash.

That would become even harder if money was more important to gameplay.

 

8 hours ago, glaciers said:

why does an idea need to make sense? how is this even a question?

Unless you were just saying that my words were illegible, The criticism that an idea "makes no sense" is ambiguous and nondescript without anything to specify it.

 

8 hours ago, glaciers said:

the problem with the weapons i listed is you've listed each pair as being in the same tier, yet they have significantly different places in the meta

You didn't/haven't explained how this is a problem.

 

8 hours ago, glaciers said:

if the intent is to influence player choice then its a failure, if a player is going to pay t2 ammo cost there's no reason for them to choose the issra over the ntec

What reason do players currently have to use ISSRA over the NTEC?

How will those reasons go away when the ammo they use suddenly costs 10x more? 

 

8 hours ago, glaciers said:

its a leftover feature because its part of a different design ethos that apb has been moving away from, albeit slowly

No it hasn't, The game couldn't have moved away from that "ethos" when it hasn't been able to move at all.

8 hours ago, glaciers said:

just because the people who ruined apb intended for lower tier vehicles to underperform doesn't mean they need to continue underperforming

The cheap vehicles wouldn't be considered underperforming if the more expensive cars didn't always give you their moneys worth of performance.

Buffing the the "bad" vehicles into usefulness is impossible without harming gameplay dynamics and making everything feel and play the same.

 

8 hours ago, glaciers said:

its extra work to reach the same place then, even ignoring the other problems cost balancing may introduce

This is just mathematically wrong. 

Adding an ammo type for every weapon and balancing each with unique ammo costs is less work than balancing every weapon's equip time, magazine size, ammo count, reload speed, range, damage, rate of fire, recoil, damage fall off, running hipfire spread, walking hipfire spread, standing hipfire spread, crouched hipfire spread, crouched moving hipefire spread, standing aimed spread, aimed walking spread, aimed crouched spread, moving aimed crouch spread, and probably more I am forgetting. 

 

8 hours ago, glaciers said:

this varies wildly depending on consumable use and player progression level, but its entirely possible to only use free consumables without worrying about inventory management

Which method is easier and which is more sustainable?  Buying consumables outright so you can use them at will or altering how you play the game so you never run out in the first place?

Would you say one player is being rewarded and the other punished or are these just equally valid ways to play the game "competitively"?

Edited December 18, 2021 by Someone

[Hexerin 1140]

How to make the game pay to win in one easy step: A concept by someone who doesn't have a fucking clue.