This game isn't going to be revived unless they manage to actually bring in new players and keep them

[Rebelliousness 85]

2 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

the original rtw matchmaking was based solely on the last 50 mission W:L ratio, i cant think of a threat system that would enable dethreaters better than that tbh

id also argue that leaderboards from rtw and the coveted G10 threat level from g1 (while neither one was a bad thing imo), lead to far more "win at all costs" gameplay than the simple 3 tier visual system we have now

You never played that game, per your own admission you only knew Threat Segregation, so your ability to criticize a system you never played under is moot.  There WERE no dethreaters then.  Dethreaters were a symptom of the BROKEN Threat Segregation. Edited July 11, 2018 by Rebelliousness

[vsb 6171]

3 minutes ago, Rebelliousness said:

You never played that game, per your own admission you only knew Threat Segregation, so your ability to criticize a system you never played under is moot.  It also is a discussion for another thread.

if you didnt want a discussion here you shouldnt have posted here

also the perspective of an outsider looking in is a pretty important one, especially in this case since - if the threat system is changed - the outsiders will be new players

we are still thinking about the new players arent we?


  Edited July 11, 2018 by BXNNXD
why the hell does it quote quotes all the sudden

[Rebelliousness 85]

3 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

if you didnt want a discussion here you shouldnt have posted here

also the perspective of an outsider looking in is a pretty important one, especially in this case since - if the threat system is changed - the outsiders will be new players

we are still thinking about the new players arent we?
 

How can you possibly criticize a system you never played under?  You continually make threads as if it were WORSE than Threat Segregation, which is the very worst thing which happened to this game.  False criticism of something you know nothing about isn't a discussion. the threat system changed.  People who know HOW it changed are trying to TELL you something, but you seem incapable of listening. New players HAD a chance under the old system, is the point. Consider that outsiders will never know how great this game was, because the system under G1 ruined it for all of us.  But it has a chance at being restored. Why are you arguing against that chance? Edited July 11, 2018 by Rebelliousness

[vsb 6171]

5 minutes ago, Rebelliousness said:

How can you possibly criticize a system you never played under?  You continually make threads as if it were WORSE than Threat Segregation, which is the very worst thing which happened to this game?  False criticism of something you know nothing about isn't a discussion.

because its insanely obvious - or at least it should be - that basing threat level off W:L ratio makes it so exploitable that you might as well just remove dethreating from the "bannable" list

dont have to play with the system for that, and your unreasonable dismissal of such a glaring flaw just makes me wonder why i even bothered to bring it up


  Edited July 11, 2018 by BXNNXD
typo

[Rebelliousness 85]

Just now, BXNNXD said:

because its insanely obvious - or at least it should be - that basing threat level off W:L ratio makes it so exploitable that you might as well just remove dethreating from the "bannable" list

dont have to play with the system for that, and your unreasonable dismissal of such a glaring flaw just makes me wonder why i even bothered to bring it up


 

Let me point something out to you, Mr. "insanely obvious.. Prior to the threat Segregation change... NO ONE complained about the matchmaking system.  No one.  And dethreating simply wasn't a thing.  Whatever happened, G1 corrupted the original RTW files and were unable to reroll that awful patch.  A series of unoptimized rubberbanding, miles of pedestrians flooding the districts, so many side effects of "insanely coded" mess destroyed so many things in the game, that heretofore had never been a problem.

All that we have today.... is the direct legacy of a change no one even asked for.  That it was working before, and not working now is what is INSANELY OBVIOUS.

[CookiePuss 5379]

2 minutes ago, Rebelliousness said:

Let me point something out to you, Mr. "insanely obvious.. Prior to the threat Segregation change... NO ONE complained about the matchmaking system.  No one.  And dethreating simply wasn't a thing.  Whatever happened, G1 corrupted the original RTW files and were unable to reroll that awful patch.  A series of unoptimized rubberbanding, miles of pedestrians flooding the districts, so many side effects of "insanely coded" mess destroyed so many things in the game, that heretofore had never been a problem.

All that we have today.... is the direct legacy of a change no one even asked for.  That it was working before, and not working now is what is INSANELY OBVIOUS.

Probably a good thing LO will be reworking both threat and matchmaking.
We done now?

[Misakaaa 11]

i feel like they should add something as a reward for playing as a high threat

[vsb 6171]

2 minutes ago, Rebelliousness said:

Let me point something out to you, Mr. "insanely obvious.. Prior to the threat Segregation change... NO ONE complained about the matchmaking system.  No one.  And dethreating simply wasn't a thing.  Whatever happened, G1 corrupted the original RTW files and were unable to reroll that awful patch.  A series of unoptimized rubberbanding, miles of pedestrians flooding the districts, so many side effects of "insanely coded" mess destroyed so many things in the game, that heretofore had never been a problem.

All that we have today.... is the direct legacy of a change no one even asked for.  That it was working before, and not working now is what is INSANELY OBVIOUS.

i cant speak for rtw but i'll say that only having 3 months to actually play probably wouldnt allow anyone to really start to need to game the system

as for g1 apb, people have been complaining about matchmaking since at least cbt, if you go search the old forums you'll see matchmaking posts from 2010

[Rebelliousness 85]

3 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

i cant speak for rtw but i'll say that only having 3 months to actually play probably wouldnt allow anyone to really start to need to game the system

as for g1 apb, people have been complaining about matchmaking since at least cbt, if you go search the old forums you'll see matchmaking posts from 2010

But that was the original game, and it worked.  What we have now is brutal, noob-killing, and it does not work. I was there when Threat Segregation patch rolled out.  And I was one of the earliest critics of how it destroyed our game.  Go ahead and reread those old posts, and get a clue how the playerbase ACTUALLY felt about it. NO ONE wanted threat Segregation and EVERYONE asked for the patch to be rerolled.  But the files were already wrecked.  Since that time a number of attempted fixes have just broken things even more.

G1 didn't control the game in closed beta testing. RTW did.  Ofc matchmaking was always problematic.  but under RTW it was not BROKEN the way that Threat Segregation broke it. 

16 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

because its insanely obvious - or at least it should be - that basing threat level off W:L ratio makes it so exploitable that you might as well just remove dethreating from the "bannable" list

dont have to play with the system for that, and your unreasonable dismissal of such a glaring flaw just makes me wonder why i even bothered to bring it up

You mean to say, you didn't play the game when it wasn't broken... but simply accept that it's always been broken.  Shame, because in the absence of experience you now argue against something that worked very well and was loved by most APB players. Edited July 11, 2018 by Rebelliousness

[vsb 6171]

1 minute ago, Rebelliousness said:

But that was the original game, and it worked.  What we have now is brutal, noob-killing, and it does not work. I was there when Threat Segregation patch rolled out.  And I was one of the earliest critics of how it destroyed our game.  Go ahead and reread those old posts, and get a clue how the playerbase ACTUALLY felt about it. NO ONE wanted threat Segregation and EVERYONE asked for the patch to be rerolled.  But the files were already wrecked.  Since that time a number of attempted fixes have just broken things even more.

while i agree that the hard "one threat per district" lock was perhaps too harsh, there was certainly a number of complaints before that, since you were free to enter any threat level district (albeit with a monetary penalty, but what veteran player is actually worried about money?)

there was a lot of noob stomping going on, just no one dethreating because no one had to

[Crunk 88]

7 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

i cant speak for rtw but i'll say that only having 3 months to actually play probably wouldnt allow anyone to really start to need to game the system

as for g1 apb, people have been complaining about matchmaking since at least cbt, if you go search the old forums you'll see matchmaking posts from 2010

Idiots that weren't to be taken seriously complained about matchmaking from 2010 till they made threat segregation and turned threat account-wide and score-based. Smart people that absolutely should be taken seriously have complained ever since.

[Rebelliousness 85]

Just now, BXNNXD said:

while i agree that the hard "one threat per district" lock was perhaps too harsh, there was certainly a number of complaints before that, since you were free to enter any threat level district (albeit with a monetary penalty, but what veteran player is actually worried about money?)

there was a lot of noob stomping going on, just no one dethreating because no one had to

See, this is another example that you don't know what you are talking about.  THERE WAS NO MONETARY PENALTY FOR ENTERING ANY DISTRICT because there was NO SEGREGATION.  the monetary penalty was imposed to reduce "veteran players" from ENTERING lower threat districts.

There WAS no "NOOB STOMPING" going on, because NOOBS were given numerical value in comparison with higher threat/rank players.  For example: 1 gold would get 2 silver op.  Sometimes 2 silver op + a bronze.  When there simply weren't high ranl/threat silvers... one gold would get 6 bronzes and 2 trainees as op.  So what happened was actually Gold threat 10's got stomped.

[Crunk 88]

9 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

while i agree that the hard "one threat per district" lock was perhaps too harsh, there was certainly a number of complaints before that, since you were free to enter any threat level district (albeit with a monetary penalty, but what veteran player is actually worried about money?)

there was a lot of noob stomping going on, just no one dethreating because no one had to

It wasn't even segregated THAT way before, it was literally like Open-Conflict but ranks and threat were shown and the matchmaking system actually worked correctly because it's built to find 6 bronzes for every one gold, as well as WINS/LOSSES being what determined Threat, making Team-Work the name of the game, not KDR.

The only god damn reason G1 changed the system was because TEAM-WORK doesn't PROMOTE ARMAS BULLCRAP Edited July 11, 2018 by CrunkGirl

[vsb 6171]

8 minutes ago, Rebelliousness said:

See, this is another example that you don't know what you are talking about.  THERE WAS NO MONETARY PENALTY FOR ENTERING ANY DISTRICT because there was NO SEGREGATION.  the monetary penalty was imposed to reduce "veteran players" from ENTERING lower threat districts.

There WAS no "NOOB STOMPING" going on, because NOOBS were given numerical value in comparison with higher threat/rank players.  For example: 1 gold would get 2 silver op.  Sometimes 2 silver op + a bronze.  When there simply weren't high ranl/threat silvers... one gold would get 6 bronzes and 2 trainees as op.  So what happened was actually Gold threat 10's got stomped.

6 minutes ago, CrunkGirl said:

It wasn't even segregated THAT way before, it was literally like Open-Conflict but ranks and threat were shown and the matchmaking system actually worked correctly because it's built to find 6 bronzes for every one gold, as well as WINS/LOSSES being what determined Threat, making Team-Work the name of the game, not KDR.

The only god damn reason G1 changed the system was because TEAM-WORK doesn't PROMOTE ARMAS BULLCRAP

i remember districts having threat levels since obt at the latest, cant remember when the money lock was implemented

i also remember the zerg missions, and the matchmaking never really added up regardless of the numbers imo, adding more shambling zombies to mow down doesnt add that much difficulty - especially back on the old system where gold was more difficult to get

granted the old 1 gold = 2 silvers = 4 bronzes thing is a lot better than the straight 3 golds vs 2 silvers and 1 bronze we get a lot of today

[Crunk 88]

5 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

i remember districts having threat levels since obt at the latest, cant remember when the money lock was implemented

i also remember the zerg missions, and the matchmaking never really added up regardless of the numbers imo, adding more shambling zombies to mow down doesnt add that much difficulty - especially back on the old system where gold was more difficult to get

granted the old 1 gold = 2 silvers = 4 bronzes thing is a lot better than the straight 3 golds vs 2 silvers and 1 bronze we get a lot of today

Threat Segregation's earliest state was applied right before OBT ended, and the game was released with it. Every Open Beta Tester in the game SCREAMED no, but all MoneyFirst saw was dollar signs and glory.
The point isn't that noob stomping wasn't a thing for me, the point is that working WITH noobs was a heavily needed aspect of keeping your threat, therefore noobs were taught how to play by golds and silvers that HAD to teach them to play the game well. Noobs were sharpened against multiple skill levels at once, and the game was in a much better place, outside of the children coming in off Modern Warfare 2, asking to be coddled by an easier threat system because they, as noobs, believed they deserved special treatment instead of playing the game for what it is, and was advertised for. You come in as a nobody, you become a somebody, you BE ALL YOU CAN'T BE. Edited July 12, 2018 by CrunkGirl

[VirckCS 0]

Well for the most part, level 255 golds stick with fight clubs, and only a few drip over into the bronze servers to AMG-556 up some newbs using the Ntec.
Give the 255 players something else to do besides wipe the floor with the poor buggers sitting around rank 50-120.

[Rebelliousness 85]

38 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

i remember districts having threat levels since obt at the latest, cant remember when the money lock was implemented

i also remember the zerg missions, and the matchmaking never really added up regardless of the numbers imo, adding more shambling zombies to mow down doesnt add that much difficulty - especially back on the old system where gold was more difficult to get

granted the old 1 gold = 2 silvers = 4 bronzes thing is a lot better than the straight 3 golds vs 2 silvers and 1 bronze we get a lot of today

I'm talking about the Threat Segregation Patch of 2013, and prior to that there were no threat colored districts because... there was no threat segregation.  I have zero clue what fantasy OBT APB you could possibly be talking about.  For one thing, your forum account was created in 2014.  From your knowledge base, that seems about right. 
 

Quote

Back in March we listed our major goals for 2013. So far this year, we've brought in:

The updated score system
The new front end
Elective spawning system
Another test of Asylum
Threat segregation
The smart district spin-up 

...We hope that you've enjoyed the changes that we've made to the game recently. 

https://apbreloaded.gamersfirst.com/2013/07/reloaded-day-update.html

the intent was to keep veterans from stomping noob players. the implementation was to paint a sign on newer players by segregating them into a district and thus creating the nuclear catastrophe of noob stomping such as never even envisioned before... and coupled with that a series of matchmaking and scoring changes which took something basically fair... and permanently ruining it so that APB forums have for years been screaming about it ever since.  And prior to this brainchild Threat Segregation patch, almost no one on forums even complained about matchmaking.  Really! So I say just go back to the original RTW game, and work with that, instead of the burnt out radioactive waste of a ruin the game became (this one, the APB version). Edited July 12, 2018 by Rebelliousness

[Isais 11]

7 hours ago, CookiePuss said:

is "cunty" even a word?

A word is a string of letters

[vsb 6171]

28 minutes ago, Rebelliousness said:

I'm talking about the Threat Segregation Patch of 2013, and prior to that there were no threat colored districts because... there was no threat segregation.  I have zero clue what fantasy OBT APB you could possibly be talking about.  For one thing, your forum account was created in 2014.  From your knowledge base, that seems about right. 
  the intent was to keep veterans from stomping noob players. the implementation was to paint a sign on newer players by segregating them into a district and thus creating the nuclear catastrophe of noob stomping such as never even envisioned before... and coupled with that a series of matchmaking and scoring changes which took something basically fair... and permanently ruining it so that APB forums have for years been screaming about it ever since.  And prior to this brainchild Threat Segregation patch, almost no one on forums even complained about matchmaking.  Really! So I say just go back to the original RTW game, and work with that, instead of the burnt out radioactive waste of a ruin the game became (this one, the APB version).

interesting, i could have sworn that districts had threat levels before that but i suppose im remembering wrong

still gonna say that going back to a W:L based threat system would be a mistake though, far too easily manipulated

my forum account date is because this isnt my og account, that was somehow wiped clean of posts when the new forums spun up

[Rebelliousness 85]

Well Threat Segregation was exactly what it means... segregating the Districts.  It wasn't part of the original game. The threat and matchmaking systems have had a number of adjustments, but the most ruinous was the Threat Segregation patch, which completely introduced a whole new game.  the previous game wasn't being abused... it was the new system which created a system of abuses, like falling into a hole which the game never could get out of. The more they tried to fix, the more they broke the system.  This is why, at this point LO would be advised to evaluate the original game.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Rebelliousness

[Slickmund 58]

@RebelliousnessI have adressed this, specifically addressed towards you in a different thread as well. I will not repeat everything I said there as my replies are already lenghty enough as they are in my opinion.
Besides the, actually quite obvious, no need to get pissy about that, issue with the manipulation of scores and thus threat level or rank or whatever, which BXNNXD was kindly pointing out being one of the primary issues of such a system. There is the issue of the player pool with matchmaking with such a system. You might have enjoyed playing with vets and seeing noobs getting taught, because the 80 players in a district were more mixed in terms of experience. But more competitive players either had a hard time finding a proper match or had to dwell through all the districts to find one. Whilst the new players were just thrown in the grinder just alike. Put 8 bronzes and a silver against a proper gold and 2 bronzes. Guess what? They might win but its like that team of 9 is running through a minefield each time they walk over to the objective. I have played in those times, and hardly enjoyed it as I started playing it more. 
Purifying the toxicity starts with purifying the tools the playerbase has. New players arent well informed, and the game in not in any sense intuinitive, not for a 3rd person shooter even. New players are like: I SHOT HIM 9 TIMES IN THE HEAD, I SAW THE HITMARK WHY ISNT HE DEAD? Not at all aware of the mechanics underneath that turn a bullets into peas beyond a certain range. What does a new player learn in a green district? Anything he notices himself, quick learners learn the basics, impatient ones learn squat from their own experiences.
The issue at hand is far more delicate than you assume at this point and LO most likely realizes this. A simple, oh lets go back to the good ol times won't heal this game either. Because A, the game changed. B, the playerbase changed. C, the old system wasn't as well appreciated and glorified as you claim it is, hate simply didn't have such a big mouth back then because the game was new. And in new games, the first wave are the enthusiastic players, not nearly as vocal as in an old game.
I find it a pity to see you lash out in such a manner and discuss in such a manner, especially towards BXNNXD which replies in a decent manner and besides his trolling, is known for this. Atleast, if you read the forums plenty.

Stating that LO should evaluate Pre-G1 systems, surely, good call on that. However them as well should and most likely will realize, that theyre not dealing with the same kid anymore (the game itself) it has grown, and has been defiled in manners it won't just forget and therefore caution would be well in place in changing this game.

Either way, at this point, the old system, this game goes feminine features up straight away I can guarantee you that. Unless we're getting way bigger servers.
Oh and some of us do actually talk to newbies whilst playing with or against them, and put in the effort to teach them a trick or two. I actually keep in touch with plenty of them and appreciate their dedication to the game and gratitude for the shared knowledge. I'm confident I am not alone in doing this. Edited July 12, 2018 by Slickmund

[Rebelliousness 85]

11 minutes ago, Slickmund said:

@RebelliousnessI have adressed this, specifically addressed towards you in a different thread as well. I will not repeat everything I said there as my replies are already lenghty enough as they are in my opinion.
Besides the, actually quite obvious, no need to get pissy about that, issue with the manipulation of scores and thus threat level or rank or whatever, which BXNNXD was kindly pointing out being one of the primary issues of such a system. There is the issue of the player pool with matchmaking with such a system. You might have enjoyed playing with vets and seeing noobs getting taught, because the 80 players in a district were more mixed in terms of experience.  -snip-

Seeing as I was very new then and not a vet, I was one of the bronzies... so your point about hoiw I much enjoyed the system BEFORE Threat Segregation for it's noob-stomping is not only fallacious, it's inconceivable.  The matchmaking system was a lot more fair for the lower threats/ranks then it is today... and the scoring system, based on a lot longer period of time was more forgiving, so that low silvers didn't drop down to bronze after a few bad matches.  But most importantly, the earlier system can't even be compared to the system we have now, which for all intents and purposes simply became a brutal noob-stomping game... and the original game was nothing like this.

[Slickmund 58]

26 minutes ago, Rebelliousness said:

I am not saying that system back then was not better than it is now. I am saying that system wont work the same way with the game being a different type of beast by now.
Also, I am pointing out that you played the game in an early stage which is nearly always more pure in terms of toxic behaviour like noobstomping, those are symptoms that develop over time.
The threat segregation was implemented poorly, that has been clear to me for a long time now. It is next to impossible to stay green for more than 1 or 2 missions as long as you have your hand on your mouse and keyboard and aren't just driving over town being lost, making the threat level obsolete. Which should be the threat level at which new players can experiment and learn at their own pace. The leap from Bronze to Silver is huge because for a new player, since most players are bronze if not higher, making it so that having silver players in a bronze district is not great in terms of balancing. As you turn silver youre left with a choice, playing up, or down. Playing up is a real challenge, playing down is easy grinding. Grinding is a big part of this game, so ye, most are going to play down when given the choice.

I reckon there's a list of solution I can't even think of to help improve matchmaking, however I do strongly believe hard threat locking are a must at some point. Having mixed districts besides that to give players the choice to really play up, and learn from that and hopefully their opponents, would be lovely as well.
Im pretty confident you will see the nice skilled players show up in the mixed districts, and the motivated newer players which are very eager to play up and learn as well.

On a different note, implementation of a feedback system for players would be great as well. For an instance, in CSGO, you can judge someones gameplay during or after you play them, things like: Friendly, was fun to play with. Or helpfull, this player was informative. But also the good ol frowny face. People like 'likes' and those types of systems reward good behaviour. Where-as in APB noob stomping is rewarding in terms of grinding. Purifying a toxic playerbase takes more than just a matchmaking system you know. Edited July 12, 2018 by Slickmund

[yood 345]

4 hours ago, CookiePuss said:

I wonder why you dont mention dethreaters... lol jk I know exactly why you dont.

если вы знаете CookiePuss. Не беспокойте меня своими пустыми мыслями.                                                                                                                                                                                       Edited July 12, 2018 by YooD

[CookiePuss 5379]

3 minutes ago, YooD said:

4 hours ago, CookiePuss said:

I wonder why you dont mention dethreaters... lol jk I know exactly why you dont.

if you CookiePuss know what to say. Do not bother me with your empty thoughts

Sorry, im like 90% empty thoughts.