Fully reverting IR changes.. and why we tried them in the first place

[Weeb TheEpicGuyV2 269]

By old improved rifling, do you mean the one with +3,5 & 7m with their respective increased bloom? Because even though they are arguably a straight upgrade, an extra 7m, at least imo, isn't really worth equipping the mod in my eyes. Distances in this game are a lot shorter than one thinks. That's my personal take anyway

[SKay 207]

1 hour ago, MattScott said:

Hi all,

 

Just like the title says, I've made the decision to revert the IR3 changes with the Halloween patch.

 

For the record, I still feel like the IR3 changes were better -- in most cases.

 

I still feel like the original IR3 implementation ends up with little to no downside. The mod uses set values and not percentages, so players can use that mod to force weapons out of their intended category by extending their range. Changing the mod to be percentage based allowed us to scale the upside/downsides properly.

 

However, "most cases" isn't good enough. Since the changes went live, the design team and I have been trying to solve IR3 on slotted Legendaries. We toyed with a bunch of scenarios, but all of them create more complexity / variations of the same mod and muddy up understanding how the game works.

Hindsight is 20/20. We should have immediately reverted this months ago when players raised the various issues, and then gone back to the drawing board. Instead, each week it appeared like we had a new solution, so I let the changes stand while we explored each new implementation.

 

My apologies to all the players who were affected.

We'll do better in the future.

 

Thanks,
Matt

 

I disagree with reverting the chages, while a good natured clause for doing so:

 

1. The majority of those that complained (i.e the vocal minority) were using weapons that directly depended on it to gain advantage the weapons really shouldn't have.

 

2. From this - I feel it'll go back to what it was before: NTEC/OCA meta with no real consideration for other weapons.

 

3. Hindsight is indeed 20/20, but hindsight should also be eered with caution - going back to a problem due to a solution that half works is worse than sticking with a placeholder solution, not reverting all the way back.

 

I would ask to take some more time thinking this through.

 

 

[Fortune Runner 796]

53 minutes ago, KERNIE said:

trying their best by ignoring insightful advice from people who have actual unbiased experience in what the game needs and listening to silvers who main osmaw is about as unhealthy for a game as it gets

yet you're biased so cant be you

 

1 hour ago, MattScott said:

Hi all,

 

Just like the title says, I've made the decision to revert the IR3 changes with the Halloween patch.

 

For the record, I still feel like the IR3 changes were better -- in most cases.

 

I still feel like the original IR3 implementation ends up with little to no downside. The mod uses set values and not percentages, so players can use that mod to force weapons out of their intended category by extending their range. Changing the mod to be percentage based allowed us to scale the upside/downsides properly.

 

However, "most cases" isn't good enough. Since the changes went live, the design team and I have been trying to solve IR3 on slotted Legendaries. We toyed with a bunch of scenarios, but all of them create more complexity / variations of the same mod and muddy up understanding how the game works.

Hindsight is 20/20. We should have immediately reverted this months ago when players raised the various issues, and then gone back to the drawing board. Instead, each week it appeared like we had a new solution, so I let the changes stand while we explored each new implementation.

 

My apologies to all the players who were affected.

We'll do better in the future.

 

Thanks,
Matt

thanks for trying Little Orbit although some wont admit it you are appreciated (They're Tsundere)

 

1 hour ago, hack said:

If you are reverting the IR 3 changes, Do not increase the base range of the OBIR and Obeya by 5 meters in the upcoming weapon balance.

 

1 hour ago, Lumshedens said:

this

I agree as well

 

 

forgot to add something......when cleaning a house full of boxes sometimes the house gets messed up more than it was when started until certain boxes are finally moved to where they go in the house.

not so easily done to a game of course especially APB.

After the engine upgrade  - if possible - i would suggest Little Orbit re codes the weapons gun by gun so that changes like this can be done without affecting them all.

for example some guns Little Orbit and players didnt like the changes to - and if coded a little different as an exception - would allow it to still not be  borked to the ones who rely on it.

Personally i liked the changes but its not like i use every last gun in the game either so my opinion is just that , an opinion.

and of course my suggestion might make certain guns the same so its more of an idea than a suggestion.

basically just saying something to look into.

 

 To all of Little Orbit thank you for the hard work.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Fortune Runner

[Weeb TheEpicGuyV2 269]

3 minutes ago, SKay said:

From this - I feel it'll go back to what it was before: NTEC/OCA meta with no real consideration for other weapons.

We're already at this stage. Just don't forget to add the CR762 to that list

[BlatMan 708]

1 hour ago, hack said:

If you are reverting the IR 3 changes, Do not increase the base range of the OBIR and Obeya by 5 meters in the upcoming weapon balance.

 

LO reduced the ranges because the new IR changes would have increased range too much. Pre patch was 60M stock, 67M IR3. Post patch 55M stock, 66.2M IR3. LO also reduced the range of the carbines like JOKER Carbine and OSCAR to make up for the IR change, but it didn't make sense to put IR on them after the patch due to the excessive TTK increase.

 

I'm not for or against the rifle/carbine range change. The shorter range still makes IR3 a good choice once IR is reverted, but it also makes HB on the CR762 a more viable choice if you need minimum ttk in a closer combat area. The only weapon I see it being an issue with is the 'bullshark', since you can't put any red mod on it.

 

At least shotguns will now have a useful red mod again. I still think HB should reduce spread to provide an alternative mod.

Edited October 19, 2018 by MrsHappyPenguin

[sciaN 36]

And never rush unnecessary nerfs like this ever again...thanks.

[Excalibur! 207]

1 hour ago, KERNIE said:

trying their best by ignoring insightful advice from people who have actual unbiased experience in what the game needs and listening to silvers who main osmaw is about as unhealthy for a game as it gets

ahhh delicious straight truth

 

As someone who do not play games trying to make a game funny... and fresh.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Excalibur!

[Weeb TheEpicGuyV2 269]

1 minute ago, Excalibur! said:

ahhh delicious straight truth

 

As someone who do not play games trying to make a game funny... and fresh.

My lord, I'm surprised you didn't request for the hvr to be reverted. They reverted one thing you hated after all

[Kewlin 692]

19 minutes ago, Fortune Runner said:

After the engine upgrade  - if possible - i would suggest Little Orbit re codes the weapons gun by gun so that changes like this can be done without affecting them all.

for example some guns Little Orbit and players didnt like the changes to - and if coded a little different as an exception - would allow it to still not be  borked to the ones who rely on it.

Personally i liked the changes but its not like i use every last gun in the game either so my opinion is just that , an opinion.

and of course my suggestion might make certain guns the same so its more of an idea than a suggestion.

basically just saying something to look into.

 

Please don't do this, APB does not need to be more complicated.

[Excalibur! 207]

5 minutes ago, Weeb TheEpicGuyV2 said:

My lord, I'm surprised you didn't request for the hvr to be reverted. They reverted one thing you hated after all

Yes, it needs to be reverted.

I explained why.

 

If they really need to nerfed i explained how without making it a fucking trash.

But hey, spending money on a guy to make shitty changes is way better.

[MattScott 15242]

Hi all,

 

I appreciate everyone's feedback, and there are several ideas that could work well.

1) We are not reverting the upside to the mod. That will continue to stay percentage based instead of static values.

2) There will be a new downside design for IR3 coming, but I didn't want players to continue to have to wait or be put through another rushed change that needs more testing.

 

Thanks,

Matt

[BlatMan 708]

That sounds better than just reverting. Hopefully the final change doesn't freak everyone out.

[Kewlin 692]

15 minutes ago, MattScott said:

There will be a new downside design for IR3 coming, but I didn't want players to continue to have to wait or be put through another rushed change that needs more testing.

 

So are you certain that IR3 with the new upsides, which are better than the old ones in almost all cases, and no downsides, is not a rushed change that needs more testing?

[CookiePuss 5377]

16 minutes ago, MattScott said:

Hi all,

 

I appreciate everyone's feedback, and there are several ideas that could work well.

1) We are not reverting the upside to the mod. That will continue to stay percentage based instead of static values.

2) There will be a new downside design for IR3 coming, but I didn't want players to continue to have to wait or be put through another rushed change that needs more testing.

 

Thanks,

Matt

Can we just make up our mind already? lol

[Nite 261]

19 minutes ago, Excalibur! said:

Yes, it needs to be reverted.

I explained why.

 

If they really need to nerfed i explained how without making it a fucking trash.

But hey, spending money on a guy to make shitty changes is way better.

When you're the guy who believes the Joker Carbine is some OP laser that needs to be nerfed I don't think you get to judge.....

[Benguin 141]

Not against changing IR3 but this one ruined more than it fixed weapon setups. It did made IR3 more optional than a must-have mod on N-tec and Oscar but at the same time made almost all other optional IR3 setups useless. Perhaps less drastic downsides will make both sides happy.

[Snubnose 639]

39 minutes ago, MattScott said:

Hi all,

 

I appreciate everyone's feedback, and there are several ideas that could work well.

1) We are not reverting the upside to the mod. That will continue to stay percentage based instead of static values.

2) There will be a new downside design for IR3 coming, but I didn't want players to continue to have to wait or be put through another rushed change that needs more testing.

 

Thanks,

Matt

 

23 minutes ago, Kewlin said:

 

So are you certain that IR3 with the new upsides, which are better than the old ones in almost all cases, and no downsides, is not a rushed change that needs more testing?

ok, keeping the percentage based upside, but going back to the almost non-existent downside is basically buffing IR3 better than it was in the first place (atleast for every weapon with 30m range and above).

I think we may should slightly reduce the fire rate downside, maybe to 10% instead of 18% untill you implement a new downside. (although I'd be fine if the -10% fire rate downside stays, I like the idea)

[Kewlin 692]

1 minute ago, Snubnose said:

 

ok, keeping the percentage based upside, but going back to the almost non-existent downside is basically buffing IR3 better than it was in the first place (atleast for every weapon with 30m range and above).

I think we may should slightly reduce the fire rate downside, maybe to 10% instead of 18% untill you implement a new downside. (although I'd be fine if the -10% fire rate downside stays, I like the idea)

 

^^ Basically this ^^

[MattScott 15242]

27 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

Can we just make up our mind already? lol

 

To be clear, all of these changes come from our designers who are extremely familiar with the game.

While I enjoy attempting to play APB, I'm awful at it (which many of you can attest).

I'm just the final vote and the messenger.

 

In this case, it was just a misunderstanding on my part how reverting was going to work.

 

Thanks,

Matt

[N66 97]

2 hours ago, MattScott said:

 

About time, appreciate that you guys do take the community's words into consideration.

The new way was broken, maybe it sounds good on paper, but Ursus was simply laser accurate, and ntec, their ranges got more separated however instead they became OP in that range, and somewhat useless in others, not as "they should be" but as in your skill in handling it barely matters at all, when those guns were supposed to be versatile, especially original ntec-5, you'd always lose to a close range gun in close range, but if that guy is bad, you got a chance to make up and win the fight

[Weeb TheEpicGuyV2 269]

58 minutes ago, MattScott said:

Hi all,

 

I appreciate everyone's feedback, and there are several ideas that could work well.

1) We are not reverting the upside to the mod. That will continue to stay percentage based instead of static values.

2) There will be a new downside design for IR3 coming, but I didn't want players to continue to have to wait or be put through another rushed change that needs more testing.

 

Thanks,

Matt

I hope IR doesn't stay in this straight upgrade state for long i.e. Shredder buff long

Edited October 19, 2018 by Weeb TheEpicGuyV2

[MattScott 15242]

4 minutes ago, Snubnose said:

 

ok, keeping the percentage based upside, but going back to the almost non-existent downside is basically buffing IR3 better than it was in the first place (atleast for every weapon with 30m range and above).

I think we may should slightly reduce the fire rate downside, maybe to 10% instead of 18% untill you implement a new downside. (although I'd be fine if the -10% fire rate downside stays, I like the idea)

This is a solid idea - but I hate the idea of shoving it into production without going through player testing.

We have OTW locked off right now while we're testing Epidemic, so we can't get players in until after the Halloween event starts.

[Nitronik 348]

4 minutes ago, MattScott said:

 

To be clear, all of these changes come from our designers who are extremely familiar with the game.

While I enjoy attempting to play APB, I'm awful at it (which many of you can attest).

I'm just the final vote and the messenger.

 

In this case, it was just a misunderstanding on my part how reverting was going to work.

 

Thanks,

Matt

This change seems rather hasty.

The issue with old IR is that it worked really well on some guns (CR762, NTEC, Joker SR15)

With the percentage based upside, you're actually making IR even stronger on those weapons - for reference, anything that has at least 30m of effective range gets more range than it would've previously

I don't know. This doesn't sound good to me. HS3 IR3 Ntec has always been overused due to how damaging it can be at range, this is just going to make it better until you guys come up with a new downside.

[Excalibur! 207]

57 minutes ago, Nite said:

When you're the guy who believes the Joker Carbine is some OP laser that needs to be nerfed I don't think you get to judge.....

Well if i used it and its incredible accurate, pointman hipfire, powerful and it has this hilarious range i would call that a nerf but a balance.

[CookiePuss 5377]

49 minutes ago, MattScott said:

 

To be clear, all of these changes come from our designers who are extremely familiar with the game.

While I enjoy attempting to play APB, I'm awful at it (which many of you can attest).

I'm just the final vote and the messenger.

 

In this case, it was just a misunderstanding on my part how reverting was going to work.

 

Thanks,

Matt

Well I wont pick on you guys anymore.

I just hope we can get things stable sooner or later.