Leaderboard

Something I've had to parrot here quite a few times is the sentiment that, for APB, "major development is over". This does not mean all development is over, but it also means we're not completely overhauling the game anymore like the full Beta, Gamma and Delta releases did. Here's a more thorough explanation: I'm satisfied with Delta as it stands, minor bugs/balance issues notwithstanding. The majority of the playerbase seems to be satisfied with it too. Many of the things left to implement from Red Alert are either MASSIVE timesinks, impossible to balance, or impossible to implement period due to engine limitations. I have already spent a ridiculous amount of my free time just fixing Delta up to its current state by myself, because throughout 2015 more and more members of the team either wound up with too many real life issues to contribute much, or they just vanished entirely. The dev team is pretty much down to me and ChopBam at this point and nearly everyone else here is busy with their own projects. I really shouldn't be pouring so much time into this since I'm not getting paid for it. I've enjoyed developing it, sure, but I can't really make it my life. I'm not about to start charging people for this game that has always been free. Especially since the only work I've actually done on it was optimising the balance and tweaking other peoples' maps, and oh yeah, there's copyright issues too. Therefore I am pretty much just here to maintain the current game by fixing bugs and balance problems, and maybe fixing up a few more maps and features that we actually have most of the framework for, because anything bigger is not a good use of my free time. So before pitching your ideas, ask yourself how long you think it would take for one person to do, if you would like to spend that much time doing it, and if it would be worth it. If not, you should probably think smaller. However, even the simplest-sounding undertakings might be stopped by the engine's limitations, and if that's how it is, then that's how it is. I have an idea that will make this gameplay feature more true to Renegade/Reborn/Red Alert! This game is not Renegade or Reborn and is not trying to be. As for Red Alert it was a very flawed game mechanically, tank spam ahoy. Many of its nuances don't translate well to FPS either. APB is more about borrowing RA's setting than its gameplay, though we do try to emulate it in the few places where it's both reasonable to do so and the engine allows us to do so. I have an idea on how to implement a Red Alert unit/power that isn't currently in the game! There's all sorts of reasons why these things aren't currently in the game: You'd better have a model and texture for it already, or know someone who can do them, cause if it's not on this list then that's most likely the primary concern, and for many of the things on this list it's just one of many concerns. Helicarrier: This would be really boring to play as. At least in the similarly unarmed MGG you're right in the action and get to crush people... Plus we don't have a model. Parabombs: Basically a nuke that wouldn't even one-shot buildings, and we lack a complete Tu-16 Badger model. Attack Dog: Spies are definitely not powerful enough to demand a hard counter - plus limitations in how we can mask their identity make them easy enough for players to detect without dogs anyway. If people come up with ideas that'd make the spy more useful, and the scripts team are able to implement them? Then I'll consider it. MCV: APB isn't SimCity. I'd rather not double the length of matches just to make people grind up their bases. The unit itself is ingame already (though it is one of the oldest and ugliest assets that we still have...) but it's only there as an objective unit for custom maps, it can't deploy. Tech Centres: Bases are big enough as they are without more massive structures of dubious purpose. Also, currently lacking the team tech centre models. We may be able to use the NBNW neutral tech centre CMDBob made as an objective somewhere though. Chronosphere/Iron Curtain: While we do have a Chronosphere model, and we may have some feasible scripting logic lying around for it, we don't have a model for the Iron Curtain (only a "destroyed" prop) - and for balance reasons we'd have to introduce both superweapons into the game at the same time. I have an idea for a new map/new take on an existing map! Go ahead and get a discussion started! Just be aware that the further your map idea deviates from standard AOW gameplay, the more likely you are to run into things that either can't be done without jumping a ridiculous amount of hurdles, or just flat out can't be done... or for the map to just not be well-received as has been the case with so many other maps that have deviated greatly from standard AOW gameplay. Also, developing each map is a pretty big time sink. I have an idea to fix this overpowered/underpowered unit or Allied/Soviet biased map! Go ahead and get a discussion started! There's probably a bunch of ways of solving it with a bunch of them being quick and easy to do. Or maybe there's something about the units/maps involved that isn't immediately obvious that I or another regular will be happy to explain. I have a bug to report! File it in the bug tracker. Thank you for your understanding

Garrisonable buildings will not feature in AR because the whole idea of garrisoning structures is too clunky and RTS-like to work in an FPS properly. The closest you'll get is buildings that you can go inside and shoot out of the windows. All infantry will be able to enter these buildings. The buildings will be props and won't be destructible or even have health bars. Both will work as they did in RA2. The Prism Tank hasn't been implemented yet, but we have a few ideas on how to get it's splash effect in.. We're only doing Allies vs Soviets. Yuri's army is too much work and Renegade's engine doesn't support 3 fully fledged teams fighting on the same map. The Allied and Soviet units from Yuri's Revenge (such as the Battle Fortress and Siege Chopper) will be included. Garrisoning isn't happening, but paradrops are. Whether they will be player or AI controlled is a decision to be made. Some tech buildings like the oil Derrick and Outpost are already in the game. Allies don't need more than one power plant unless there is a specific objective map that requires it. The gameplay just doesn't work that way. We have to cut features that were in RA2 because AR is a shooter. If we were to implement everything from RA2 then we may as well be playing RA2.

Because it told you to stop, drop everything you were doing, and pay attention to it. And you, being the good citizen you are, did exactly what the sign asked from you. Working as intended.

Have you ever watched a cutscene? Or read any lore? For starters, RA1 wasn't after WWII, it was WWII. In the opening cutscene for the game, the scientist time travels and removes Hitler, thereby taking WWII as an event out of time. So WWII never happened, and the timeline changed. Korea- and Vietnam-era weaponry came about earlier due to necessity. And the Tiberium universe wasn't post-apocalyptic. GDI is a UN military conglomerate, not a group of survivors. They most likely existed in some form before Tiberium was discovered. As for Nod, they're a terrorist organization. Their tech is based on stealth, hit-and-run tactics, and guerilla warfare. So it's not that their tech is older(though some of it is), it's just that their tactics rely on faster, cheaper weaponry. Am I getting all this right, lore-nuts?

I felt like the APP was more fun, in that regard. Nothing against the regular Power Plant, but I enjoyed the layout of the APP.

No. This is what delta does . Every. Goddamn. Time.

Looks like I'll take the answering from OWA this time 1. It wont be a playable team, but a small AI team of Yuri's forces might appear as secondary objectives on certain maps, and as an AI team that will keep harrassing both teams. 2. I actually talked to Jerad2142 and from the discussion it came out we can totally toggle player/AI controlled Osprey on keypress. I was thinking it can be either controlled by a second player, or the first player ("driver") switching over to control the Osprey or let the AI fly it (chosen by the player which method to use for maximum player-decision support) 3. No idea how we'll do this yet. 4. Yes, someone already posted the model we have. 5. The Chrono Miner is already teleporting back to the Refinery. Chrono-infantry will come in a later release. 6. If you get in the IFV it starts with the standard rocket turret. Then if you press Q, depending on the infantry you entered with, it will switch to a different turret like in RA2. You can switch back to rocket too. See video for yourself. 7. Kirovs will be in, the Soviet War Factory was modelled big enough with Kirovs in mind so they can fit through the roof. 8. Engineers stealing tech? Probably not. TBD. We might find a different usage for them. Right now they can disable buildings, repair bridges and capture tech structures. 9. Yep. Your country is chosen randomly by the game at mapstart. Map-makers can choose which countries are allowed or their map. 10. Only 4 as there are 4 pads. This is how it works currently. 11. The Spy in the Refinery should work similar to the APB thief. For stealing tech/battle lab units we might require him to bring the stolen data back to your own base though. A mini-game in the game (if cash stealing seems too easy, we might force him to walk back with the money to your base too) 12. They are cute up close when friendly, but when you see an enemy one running towards you, you'll sh*t your pants. 1. Paratroopers are partially in already. On Fort Bradley for example, soviet players spawn as paratroopers dropping down on New York. Detto for soviet bots. 2. Yes. 3. We don't even know if garrisoning will be a thing at this point. It would be useless for infantry to physically walk into a building and shoot out the windows. Tests proved that this version makes the people in the building die faster. It's also too slow for them to really walk in the building and yes I consider modeling the civilian buiding internals a waste of time compared to how much we gain with it. If we ever make garrisoning a thing, we will let people control a "turret" in different windows of the building, letting the players quickly switch to another side of the building on button press. You mean let the engineer capture stuff the same way as in the RTS games? That sounds pretty broken if you can just start pumping our vehicles in the middle of the enemy base. Not to mention, what happens if I use an engineer to take over your barracks? You now have no barracks and cannot train any engineers to take it back... Are we talking player-controlled paratroopers? As in, a bunch of you go into the Air Force Command, press some panel to summon the plane, get magically teleported into the plane, and then someone flies it or it flies itself to the destination? Kinda like a supply truck rush, but with an airplane? Engineers will not capture enemy structures. America's version of paradropping is not implemented yet in the way you mention it, but it will be somewhat like that, yes.

how dare you

I think there is still some ground to gain on the home turf. Quite a few C&C project websites have a (small) following, and aren't likely even aware of W3D Hub. Some might have no interest in covering the games since they are a departure from RTS gameplay, others have a conflict of interest in general. Streamers, although a good idea, is difficult to pull off without a 24/7 active server(s). And one or two streamers streaming a few matches isn't going to make a difference in population. The game needs a more steady player base before attempting to go big with streamers. To do that, you first need to solve the problems that causes empty servers in the first place, and that is not purely a PR matter, it is also very much a game design matter (and not always something unique to APB). The main factors in killing packed servers and preventing players from joining: Populated servers see a consistent player drop whenever an infantry map is next in rotation. Solution: Remove infantry maps and re-implemented them at a later date with bases and vehicles. Players refuse to join empty servers and are unable to really organize themselves to get a game going. Solution 1A: Get the chat lobby working. Solution 1B: Implement functional gameplay for player populations 1 to 6. Players leave the game in stalemate situations where they got nothing left to do due to factory destruction. Solution: End the game two minutes after a team loses all production buildings (helipads excluded due to support nature). Players can get bored on some maps during the pre-ore dump waiting period. Solution: On said maps, add objectives or varied attack options that are viable to execute at match startup. Edit: I don't mean to judge, but I wonder what W3D Hub project priorities are sometimes. The programming team should really consider prioritizing the development of systems that benefit all W3D projects, such as mechanics that help resolve issues like the inability to have map content dynamically scale based on player population in a match. The programming team knows W3D like an open book, surely they could find a way to tackle this issue and develop a set of scripts that can do things based on the population scale. Example script 1: Count players on match start, enable X out of Y pre-set single-spawn vehicle spawns to get the fight going right away without waiting for an ore dump. Re-count every 30 seconds, keep unlocking/spawning X out of Y vehicle spawns as more players join until Y has ran out of the maximum number of pre-set spawners. To prevent stuck issues as vehicles spawn out of thin air, the vehicles should probably arrive via cinematic reinforcements, so a new player joins -> reinforcement vehicle arrives -> new player can get into the action right away (this stops occurring after Y vehicles have spawned). Example script 2: Count players on match start, enable X out of Y AI support units designed to fight other units in the battle regions of the map (not bases). Re-count every 30 seconds, reducing the number of active AI units as more players join by disabling their re-spawn locations (and re-enabling them should players leave). The number of active AI units can be 0 but not greater than Y. The AI could originate from "reinforcement zones" that don't have to be in the same location as team bases. Etc.

Would it be too much work to hollow out the buildings and have infantry use the windows to fire out of them?

No.

The PR discussion has been split to here.

Am I the only one here thinking S E M should get slapped into the funnies group with Makintoke?