Leaderboard

Do that. Determine a threshold and make it happen. Problem solved.

Looking at the statistics for Siege, it appears that there have been 55 games with more than 7 players, and 49 of those have been won by high score, with only 3 base destructions and 3 server shutdowns. I understand that to a certain extent this is how the map may have been intended to be played (hence the name), but personally I think it may be a bit excessive. I think one of the only attack strategies I've seen work is landing a chinook full of rocket soldiers outside the power plant to destroy it, and even then there usually isn't enough time to finish off the rest of the base, even if it does permanently swing the balance of the map. The problem does not seem to be an excessive amount of base defenses either. I think that issues are 1) there is only one real land route which vehicles can used to attack and 2) the castle walls make it really easy for helicopters to ambush attacking tanks and then retreat to safety. For these reasons whenever I see a large ground attack force try and mount an assault, it seems it is usually in shambles by the time it reaches the opposing base. I think one potential solution to this may lie in one of the things that makes the map unique: the cannons. I think that if the cannons were either made much more powerful or increased in number, it would encourage an attack strategy of infantry rushes on the castle walls. As it currently is, there is usually plenty of time after noticing that someone is attacking with one of the cannons to leisurely run over with any type of infantry and destroy the cannon before it does any major damage. If you increased the damage each cannon ball did to about the amount of a V2 rocket (while keeping the rate of fire the same), or had there be 2 or 3 cannons that could be used simultaneously, it would put a lot more pressure on teams to be proactive about defending/destroying the cannons before they could be used. Maybe even something like a few fixed cannons on the walls the cannot be aimed that are pointed at certain structures could be an easy addition. Also just a final note, I know that there have already been a few iterations of this map, and I can't remember all of the specifics which were changed. So if the initial version was similar to my proposed changes and it didn't work well, feel free to ignore everything I've said.

@Raap You help keep the community alive and your contributions are appreciated. It'll be a shame to see ya go.

Hello, I'm the creator of said cancerous map. I do apologize that my creation gave you cancer, I assure you, killing you was not my intent. Nevertheless, I'll answer your bullet points with my reasoning: You came to that conclusion by looking at the map scale, but not the actual play space, and certainly not the relevant play space. The relevant play space isn't any significant amount larger than standard Tech 5 maps. The Ore Truck takes a while in order to provide an opportunity for Infantry to destroy it and have it be noticeable. If the path was short like more commonly the case, destroying a truck only delays the income less. This is proportional to the travel time. To prevent economic blackouts, the dual Ore Silo keeps the game going until a team decides to take them out... If that occurs, an economic blockade becomes a real threat, and this is how you're most likely going to win the match. So first you complain that the map is too big, and then you're asking why some space is inaccessible by normal means? You're weird. Siege once offered about double the available play space than it currently has. The castle roof and interior access were axed in order to trim down the map. A lot of play space got axed to leave mostly only the relevant play space. Initially a bonus area (map secret) made the cut, but was eventually also axed. All this axing was for this triple purpose: To utilize a smaller development budget. Creating assets to occupy space takes time. To improve performance, less areas to render means more frame rates. To streamline the map, so that players do not get lost in areas that have no meaningful impact to gameplay. The purpose of APB is to destroy the enemy base, not to play hide and seek. Adding more space simply isn't an option unless gameplay changes demanded it... In Siege's case, that is unlikely unless @Pushwall gets drunk one night and decided, in blood, that Siege needs Naval combat, for... reasons. As for ghosts... They are a byproduct of inhaling toxic gasses. You don't actually believe ghosts exists? Man up soldier, and go inhale those gasses of illusion! I happen to enjoy a good rain, especially during these hot summer days. Weather helps set the mood in a map to be sure, but rain being a cause for depression? You must be of fragile mind to get depressed by some water. You'd best avoid places like, you know, lakes, oceans, even your home water tap. A common point of feedback in APB is uninspired or identical base layout design. While the Allied base on Siege isn't really special, a bit more work went into the Soviet base layout. The result of attempting to make it stand out was the lowered War Factory, expanded base tunnel, and compact building placement. The helicopter landing pads are an extension of that idea, and makes Soviet aircraft climb while clear from the base (you don't take off in an aircraft near a building, typically, due to the hazards caused by flight malfunction), and further more, the outward layout serves as a supportive extension for an adjacent Airfield, should that be enabled on the map. Naturally I'd have put more detail into the map, but even with visibility culling, the performance is absolutely pushing the current limit of W3D. Either way, if people truly wish to remove the map, then it is for @Pushwall to decide. I delivered the level, and he maintains the entire APB project. Suffice it to say, Siege was my last "new" contribution to APB. The upcoming HostileWaters revamp is my final contribution, it always was. I feel that I've lost touch with what players of W3D games want, and it'd be a waste of my limited time to continue creating undesired assets. Whether or not this will also mark the end of my working with W3D entirely is still up for me to determine.

Had to put this somewhere. 1:05:54 AM ~Volkov [GENERAL] Current game on map RA_AS_Seamist.mix has ended. Game was won by Allies by Building Destruction. It was a good round for us on the Allied side. Shout out to Furs, Testament, and Momok for the awesome team we were.

pretty cool. Maybe this means we can have useable carry-alls in reborn now too!

The insults are just trolling. Sorry if I haven't made that clear. I actually like the work you guys do. To prove that, I'll make a donation in the following days.

To add to this, none of us get paid to do this. We work for free, spending many countless hours and days of our lives working on projects to bring players like you as much fun as we can. And I say again, for free.

@erickgch Discussion is great and I highly recommend it. However I will suggest that in the future we try to start it off in some way other than calling out the mapper with comments like "cancer", "carcinogenic", and "who even made this map?", unless your intent is to actually call them out because you can do better. We don't make people feel bad here, its not really our thing. That would indeed be interesting.

Is there a way to make it so if you're viewing your stats page you can hover over the achievements or click them to display the requirements?