tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2895296296859754307.post2148337055785867752..comments2023-10-16T18:04:31.825+11:00Comments on Zombie Arcade - Game Reviews, Culture, and Blog: Stop Complaining. You're Not Helping.Troubletcathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01688663912418471134noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2895296296859754307.post-55843686986410586602011-06-19T21:24:54.412+10:002011-06-19T21:24:54.412+10:00Yeah. APB does sometimes suffer from poor mission ...Yeah. APB does sometimes suffer from poor mission design that results in a big advantage for one side. I do tend to find that there are a lot of objectives in areas that favor close-quarters weapons, though. I'm not so worried about that.<br /><br />Latency is a factor in many games.<br /><br />This was more about the idea of people screaming bullshit in the sense that they actually think the other person's gun does more damage or something. In APB latency can often result in this perception, especially if you're a long way from the server, but it's less of an issue in other settings with less players/less average distance from the host. I digress.<br /><br />You make valid points, but I guess that wasn't really the key of my post. This is MOSTLY to do with hackusations specifically.Troubletcathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01688663912418471134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2895296296859754307.post-18229184338981771832011-06-19T20:54:21.780+10:002011-06-19T20:54:21.780+10:00(continued)
Everything you said in your post is c...(continued)<br /><br />Everything you said in your post is correct in that people do out-play other people all the time and win because of it. But in games like APB: Reloaded, a "bullshit factor" certainly has a presence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2895296296859754307.post-17657948223684464312011-06-19T20:53:46.784+10:002011-06-19T20:53:46.784+10:00Interesting post, but I am going to have to insist...Interesting post, but I am going to have to insist that there is indeed a difference between declaring someone to be a hacker and declaring something (not neccessarily the other players weapons/tactics/etc) to be "bullshit". I'll explain my viewpoint from the perspective of APB: Reloaded, since I found your blog from the APB forums.<br /><br />Simply put, in my opinion there is at least some degree of "bullshit" and.... oddities in APB. Some of that may be simply due to latency/lag, as the servers suffer from lag spikes on a regular basis. Let's take an example: your using an OCA, your opponent is using an OCA, you two meet up close, you shoot first, and he ends up killing you. Does this neccessarily mean he "outplayed" you? Most certainly not. It could be that he had a better ping than you, so while you were shooting at him and hitting him (as least as far as you know) the server "disagrees" with what you as the client see, and thus he gets the kill because thats what the server interprets. In general, it seems that there are simply some oddities with regards to how kills are registered in the game.<br /><br />Another issue is not the player or the weapon, but the environment inherently favoring one type of weapon (e.g., medium/long range weapons) while giving players using another type of weapon (e.g., close ranged weapons) next to no chance at all. In the waterfront district, there are many areas that have literally NO cover at all. If someone with a medium/long ranged weapon is camping on top of a rooftop with only one way up (via a ladder), then you have next to no chance killing them with a close ranged weapon such as the OCA or PMG; there is no cover and no means to close the distance to your opponent. The environment completly nullifies the tactic of moving from cover to cover to close in on your opponent, because there is NO cover (and if they are on top of a rooftop, then even using vehicles to get close or use as temporary cover is not an option). This issue of no cover seems to take place in appoximately 80% of mission objectives in Waterfront, and about 50% in Financial. Between the two districts, users of medium/long weapons have a clear advantage (much more so in Waterfront, but nonetheless) over those who wish to focus on close-ranged weapons.<br /><br />Sure, you could use a medium/long ranged weapon yourself and get into a marksman/sniping battle with your opponent, but what if this is something you don't enjoy doing? What if instead of being forced to fight on their terms using their type of weapon, you'd rather have the option to use tactics and win using your preferred weapon of choice? Shouldn't ALL types of weapons have their place in a mission? The fact that users of close ranged weapons (shotguns or smgs) often have no cover available to them on mission objectives in the Waterfront district is arguably in itself "bullshit".<br /><br />Many of the mission objectives are arguably "bullshit" as well, in that they clearly allow a lesser skilled player/team to attain victory over a better skilled player/team. Lets take a simple example of a 1 v 1 mission: your defending and your opponent is on offense, and you have to defend the area for 5 minutes. Between your tactics and aim, you kill your opponent ten times in a row within that five minute period. But being that they arent absolutely horrible players, they manage to kill you one time after that and win the mission. Does this really mean you were "out-played"? No, in this case it simply means that it was MUCH easier for him to win that it was for you to win. In order for you to win, you had to play perfecetly for the five minute duration; for him to win, he simply has to manage to kill you one time within that five minute period and complete the objective, and he gets as many "tries" as he needs within that time period to do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com