Feedback: Escalation

[MageLO 137]

Hello everyone,
 

Escalation has been out for some time now and we would like to hear your feedback on the System.
 

Here are some things that we are specifically looking for feedback on:

 

• How common are Escalation missions and do you think their frequency is going to decrease over time?
• Are Escalation missions common enough to warrant an in-game option that lets you opt out of being called into Escalation missions via their Escalation calls?
• What could we do to help the attacking side as they seem to be at quite a disadvantage in those larger missions?
• Do you think 10vs10 is a good spot for Escalation or should we lower/increase the cap?
   

Please provide us with all of your feedback, even if it is about things that are not listed above, we want to hear from you so we can start improving the system based on your feedback.
 

Please compile all of your feedback into one structured post and avoid cluttering the thread with messages that aren't feedback posts and most importantly please stay respectful to other users who may not see things the way you do.

[Pekausis_ 58]

1. First couple of days Escalation missions were very common, like 80% of all missions you were called in a backup in these big, chaotic messes where no one knows what is going on. They have been becoming less common over time as some people are starting to understand that it`s no fun at all. 

2. An option to NOT get called into an Escalation mission would be great. Sometimes when playing with couple of friends and you want to do some teamwork, it is useless for these type of missions as these simply are too much enemies everywhere to coordinate properly.

3. Only thing that could help would be DECREASING objective completion time the more players are on each side. Not the mission timer itself [which is still just too long for some stages], but the hacking, spraying, investigating etc. That would help significantly for people who attack, as they almost never get to the objective itself in a lot of cases [open antenna hack which can be sniped from every direction]. Even if they get there, they just need to sit in the open for too long [too much enemies].

4. I think that APB was never designed for 10vs10 matches to begin with. I would leave the max escalation at 4vs4 as I think a lot of people would agree that it`s the absolute max where you still can coordinate with your team. Anything going above that makes the missions simply more unplayable and chaotic. 

5. Lots of new players think this system is fun and I`d agree from their point of view: ''the more= the better'' as a lot of them would say. As a veteran myself, even though I`m not that good at the game, I still enjoy less crowded missions a lot more that the chaotic ones.

Edited June 18 by Pekausis_

[kidi 14]

overall 10vs10 is fine but other systems are not adapter for it.

some spots are hard to reach, don't have enough time, defending team spams with car spawns, explosive/sniper weapons.

some spots have weird spawns far away.

also respawn system don't take current mission task locations into account when allowing to choose spawn point (its also damn weird 'feature', don't know who's idea this was)

also getting as a backup into missions with 1 minute time left is kinda stupid and should not be allowed

TL;DR: 10vs10 is fine, everything else needs to be tweaked for it.

Edited June 18 by kidi

[R3ACT3M 489]

I love escalating the missions to 10vs10 these matches are the most fun for me. At this stage I don't care if I win or loose as I have fun no matter what.
But I get missions where players only escalate to 3 or 4 players and these make me want to stop playing again.
In terms of balance, at first escalation was great. But as it's progressed the matches have been getting weird. Escalating has sometimes ended up in a weird 10vs4 state where the the match wouldn't fix itself. Kinda on the rarer side but it would happen.

That being said I personally LOVE to death the bigger matches. And would find it interesting to see it even higher. But 10vs10 is comfortable. I just wish matches started with more players instead of this 2vs2 3vs3 4vs4 crap.

In my time playing escalated missions I never really felt attacking or defending were at any advantage or disadvantage. If they are it's certainly not because there is 10 people now, it's because of the map designs not having good attack routes and flanks. That and way too many camping spots. That's not a 10vs10 problem that's a map problem.
 

But reading some of the other comments a system for choosing what to get queued up for seems necessary. Escalation is gimmicky at best. Just have like 2 options to queue for: Large match (12vs12) or Small match (3v3-4v4)

I would say remove escalation and just have the matches repopulate if people leave the match. This is what literally every game besides APB does.

[MACKxBOLAN 432]

It's War on the Lower threats. Golds already dominate every mission, fixing mm was to remove them, 

and or remove lower threats from gold missions.

  This type of MM insures that the lower threats remain low and wont get any xp from responding.

And keeps golds gold by letting them sit there and hose down back up as it comes in.

As if they need another 1000 kills per mission.

Then you got your buddy who i wont say the name, but its when u have two babies at once.

Who then grades players by how much of a hind end they are.

Your threat system is rigged, two missions in otw and im gold.

in live server, you turn silver after doing one kill or obj, to get gold from there is 1000s of kills per mission.

But as you probly know, it no longer matters cuz I removed my names because your buddy hates me.

But outside of golds staying on the top scores and non golds getting no xp from response or in game cash.

it seems to be a fun addition to the game. I'm sure u kids will love it. 

LO prioritized this MM fix over fixing the new car that matts says the parts are just sitting there, but still no car fix.

Then i was in otw n saw the Perfect Aimers, so between what matt said regarding hackers in the ama, and the hackers 

i saw in otw, and that i turned gold in two missions there, and your mascot told me i was sooooooo patootie. 

I quit as a player. You wanted patootie you got it. and don't bother fixing the car i refuse to buy it or anything.

It's too late now. You can bring in the best anti cheat in the world n ban them all today, n i still wont buy. 

I'll put in as much effort toward the game as Matt has removing cheaters from it over the years. 

While We (the few legits) fight these aimbotters every day all day n he sits on his patootie 

[TheMessiah 430]

I gave my feedback on discord so here ill be short: Make larger missions on separate districts.You can make even 50vs50 there

Edited June 18 by TheMessiah

[kidi 14]

24 minutes ago, TheMessiah said:

I gave my feedback on discord so here ill be short: Make larger missions on separate districts.You can make even 50vs50 there

yeaaah... like separating 200 online players even further will help with the matchmaking...

[BlatMan 712]

Waste of time. Not enough players online to have proper matchmaking. No one wants to play when basic things, like weapon audio, don't work properly.

 

Examples,

- Obeya SLR audio crackles.

- HVAC roof units have overlapping, fast playing audio at random times.

- Customized vehicles randomly load without engine audio.

 

I don't need to sign in to know these issues are not fixed. You post weekly maintenance notices, and none of them contain these fixes.

[CookiePuss 5379]

38 minutes ago, BlatMan said:

Waste of time. Not enough players online to have proper matchmaking. No one wants to play when basic things, like weapon audio, don't work properly.

 

Examples,

- Obeya SLR audio crackles.

- HVAC roof units have overlapping, fast playing audio at random times.

- Customized vehicles randomly load without engine audio.

 

I don't need to sign in to know these issues are not fixed. You post weekly maintenance notices, and none of them contain these fixes.

Huh... never noticed.

[kidi 14]

and there is no audio at all when using 32bit 384khz mode...

[R3ACT3M 489]

4 hours ago, TheMessiah said:

I gave my feedback on discord so here ill be short: Make larger missions on separate districts.You can make even 50vs50 there

 

4 hours ago, kidi said:

yeaaah... like separating 200 online players even further will help with the matchmaking...

With an idea like 50vs50 there technically isn't any matchmaking. It would be like the event districts like on halloween but with missions. I think occasional events where all districts are closed besides a couple and just call the event all out war. Offer extra XP and cash for missions during this 50vs50 event.

 

 

 

 

[jarko 43]

My opinion..

 

How common are Escalation missions and do you think their frequency is going to decrease over time?

 Rarely peoples know that its only in their advantage to do so in a Defend.

 

Are Escalation missions common enough to warrant an in-game option that lets you opt out of being called into Escalation missions via their Escalation calls?

If this is implemented to choose to opt out.. it will jeopardize the matchmaking once again.

 

What could we do to help the attacking side as they seem to be at quite a disadvantage in those larger missions?

Make in sort that you can balance vote with both teams attacking and defending. Eliminate the faction sided missions make it chaotic.

Calculating each individual players score and rebalancing in consequence.

 

Do you think 10vs10 is a good spot for Escalation or should we lower/increase the cap?

I would lower it to 7vs7 so more matches could have a chance to be fulfil with other escalations scenarios.

 

Cheers!

Edited June 19 by jarko
I did a whoopsie..

[VYDE 4]

in my opinion, 10v10 matchmaking has made the game more casual,
and gives it a huge boost of fun. The game had become boring, playing 2v2 or 4v4 and dying at the hands of strong opponents who are usually the same in the next mission.

The new MM is an excellent and much-needed update.

It's true, however, that it would be preferable to be able to choose a 'classic' (4v4) or 'escalated' (+5v5 to 10v10) game, to keep that competitive spirit that many players crave.

I haven't seen any problems apart from the chaotic aspect, which for me allows me to play without tryhard. It doesn't matter if I die, the action is permanent and the fun is guaranteed, no need to walk 200m to find an enemy behind a wall.
 

The balancing is very efficient but sometimes the wait is far too long before finding a match with a filled district.

 

if not for MM, never remove the 10v10 because it is the best thing that can have a dose of fun after a good day's work.
Keep up the good work and players will be able to believe in you.

[R3ACT3M 489]

7 hours ago, VYDE said:

in my opinion, 10v10 matchmaking has made the game more casual,

This is the huge thing. When matches are so "personal" 3v3 and less this game gets extremely competitive. To the point of extreme toxicity. 10v10 matches are the breath of fresh air this game needed for ever ago.
Still I recognize people like their 3v3 matches. But if I had a choice I would go 10v10 every day of the week.

[TheMessiah 430]

Another thing kinda off topic but is my old idea(idk if is possible to make dou)There must be option to challenge ur opposition.List with all current players/groups playn in the district(in ready,in mission or not)So u can choose to play missions the average way or u can challenge to a match similar player/group to ur threat(only ur own threat)I mean..more fair match than this idk..

Edited June 19 by TheMessiah

[Yapopal 170]

A mission breaks down if it involves more than 8 players.
Beginners with low rates are too vulnerable and useless. Veterans have a huge advantage over newcomers. The mission turns into a harvest. 
The mission often comes to a dead end. Personally, I miss the exit button from the mission. I just don't want to waste my time and nerves on useless things.

[Queen of Love 453]

How common are Escalation missions and do you think their frequency is going to decrease over time? Is common, and useful most of time, i guess will not decrease.

Are Escalation missions common enough to warrant an in-game option that lets you opt out of being called into Escalation missions via their Escalation calls? Sometime teamleader doesnT call neither for backup cause is a tryhard or a blatant cheater.

What could we do to help the attacking side as they seem to be at quite a disadvantage in those larger missions? Increase time mission (1-2 minutes, depends of mission, restore VIP)

Do you think 10vs10 is a good spot for Escalation or should we lower/increase the cap? Increase, All district fighting fever  

[Gro 104]

On 6/18/2024 at 9:58 PM, MageLO said:

What could we do to help the attacking side as they seem to be at quite a disadvantage in those larger missions?

I literally told you this in a thread about testing the thing: the only way to balance hordes for attackers is to turn mission to killcount stage. Every other scenario will always favour defending side.

[Noob_Guardian 418]

21 hours ago, R3ACT3M said:

This is the huge thing. When matches are so "personal" 3v3 and less this game gets extremely competitive. To the point of extreme toxicity. 10v10 matches are the breath of fresh air this game needed for ever ago.
Still I recognize people like their 3v3 matches. But if I had a choice I would go 10v10 every day of the week.

I have to try this, but my past experiences from the ooooold days are this:

 

1v1s - absolute garbage

2v2s - absolute garbage

3v3 fairly balanced

4v4 balanced

5v5 relatively balanced

6v6 unbalanced towards defenders

7v7+ just broken, no way to lose when defending unless you're all bad or the enemy team is just a bunch of coordinated tryhards or bots.

[R3ACT3M 489]

43 minutes ago, Noob_Guardian said:

 

I have a hard time getting feelings down over this. Re-writing this post too many times.
 

But I find it becomes less about winning when you have matches as large as 10vs10
It's more about enjoying the all out war unfolding within a city block and trying out new ideas. Ideas that would never work in a 2v2-5v5 match.

I understand it's not everyone's cup of tea. I'm sure a lot of people enjoy going head to head and being competitive.

For me though, 10 vs. 10 allows for me to play APB casually. I'm allowed to take risks and be creative. Small matches don't allow this without it being extremely punishing if I fail.

 

Then, due to how punishing it feels to fail in APB, there is no real choice but having to pick guns that can actually have a chance at winning.

 

Make no mistake, my thoughts aren't trapped in a vacuum. Large matches don't magically fix: bad weapon balancing, stuttering, and map design.

 

But these large and chaotic matches are just what makes my brain tick. No matter if I end up winning or losing.

[BlatMan 712]

8 hours ago, Noob_Guardian said:

I have to try this, but my past experiences from the ooooold days are this:

 

1v1s - absolute garbage

2v2s - absolute garbage

3v3 fairly balanced

4v4 balanced

5v5 relatively balanced

6v6 unbalanced towards defenders

7v7+ just broken, no way to lose when defending unless you're all bad or the enemy team is just a bunch of coordinated tryhards or bots.

For me, 4v4 and up are an automatic loss for the attacking team if both sides are equal skill. Limited cover and limited spawns means there's no way to push for the attacking team. 4v5 can be balanced if it's 4 mixed golds vs 5 high silver / low golds, but then the final stage is unbalanced depending on the mission type. Final stage isn't that big of a deal now that we can't have unopposed missions, so scores tend to be in favor of those who can make it through all the stages while contested at each stage.

Edited June 20 by BlatMan

[FakeBungo 248]

instead of pretending you have any idea how to implement matchmaking, hand over the game to me and i will fix it for you

[Noob_Guardian 418]

On 6/20/2024 at 4:06 AM, R3ACT3M said:

I have a hard time getting feelings down over this. Re-writing this post too many times.
 

But I find it becomes less about winning when you have matches as large as 10vs10
It's more about enjoying the all out war unfolding within a city block and trying out new ideas. Ideas that would never work in a 2v2-5v5 match.

I understand it's not everyone's cup of tea. I'm sure a lot of people enjoy going head to head and being competitive.

For me though, 10 vs. 10 allows for me to play APB casually. I'm allowed to take risks and be creative. Small matches don't allow this without it being extremely punishing if I fail.

 

Then, due to how punishing it feels to fail in APB, there is no real choice but having to pick guns that can actually have a chance at winning.

 

Make no mistake, my thoughts aren't trapped in a vacuum. Large matches don't magically fix: bad weapon balancing, stuttering, and map design.

 

But these large and chaotic matches are just what makes my brain tick. No matter if I end up winning or losing.

I never minded losing if it was a fun/good match, or if it felt relatively balanced. My issue is that at larger matches, it tends to end up being a curb stomp, or such a cluster f*ck that you either barely scape by either stage due to imbalanced spawns, or just outright lose, due to imbalanced spawns. End stage? Good luck if its an item and they move it into a open sniping ledge, or deathmatch with whoever has more silvers, and  VIP is just meh in general. (laughs in killing the VIP then spawn chasing the rest of the game)

 

I tended to play casually except against certain players. Losing didn't matter heavily, though I still tried at times just because. (sometimes only because it would punish my team if i didnt actually play up to the oppositions level) I still hate moving items via movement glitches, and killing 1 then running, etc.

 

Casual is more a mindeset.

 

If i'm playing casual, i'm probably not using a meta weapon, and trying to level up my weapon roles. If i'm "trying" i'm probably using meta.

Edited June 24 by Noob_Guardian

[Bruhd101 25]

42 minutes ago, Noob_Guardian said:

i'm probably not using a meta weapon, and trying to level up my weapon roles. If i'm "trying" i'm probably using meta.

what if I am using a weapon that isn't really in the meta category but am trying

Edited June 24 by Bruhd101

[Nagletz 218]

6 hours ago, Bruhd101 said:

what if I am using a weapon that isn't really in the meta category but am trying

Looks like me as well lol... at the end still have to switch to meta, lord forgive me.