Pushwall
-
Posts
1,896 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
128 -
Donations
0.00 USD
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Documentation
Bug Tracker
Downloads
Posts posted by Pushwall
-
-
42 minutes ago, Threve said:
I'm doing my best not to sound like an asshole, but just to re-cap in order to fix both of these maps which have proven unpopular with the community we are doing..
Hostile Waters: Removed from rotation entirely because it can't be saved. As mentioned in the changelog I may look into an alternate take on the map.
On 8/5/2018 at 4:59 PM, Pushwall said:If I can spare the time I might look into recreating the HW play space anew with basic visuals for the sake of testing how it might play if:
- the distance between bases was smaller
- the base layout encouraged attacking non-naval buildings for more reasons than just puntos
- the island layout allowed placement of AA in positions that could actually prevent a chinook from landing
- the icebergs were smaller and more spaced out so they could still be used as boat cover without suffering the current issue where they create passageways that force boats into single file and prevent them from turning around
- there was no "hold the middle" element
then if it tests well I can try to recycle Raap's HW assets for it or hand it to him and see if he can spice up the visuals. The naval repair bay might even get used for that as a teamed, killable structure so that there's another spot by your island other than just your NY where you can go to sell/repair.
Siege: Will add a missile silo when I can find the time. As the map currently stands, once we figure out what's "wrong" with Chrono Tanks and where they need to be buffed, they may make the map a bit more interesting once they're useful enough to warrant the price.
1 -
2 hours ago, Raap said:
and I still think that my take on the naval buildings is better than the regular buildings. So who knows, some other level might use some of the assets...
I've been meaning to get around to this for a while but mirroring the Advanced Naval Yard while ensuring all of its extra components also mirror properly proved problematic last time I tried.
Why would I need to mirror it, you ask?
Well, the repair bay and LST spawn zone are both on the left hand side of the building. Plus the building is twice as large as the original. And on Coastal Influence and Under, you know what else is directly to the left of the naval yard? A big old f-off cliff. So move the ANY further to the right to allow boats to park in the repair bay and LSTs to leave? Nope, no can do, because then on Coastal Influence there'd be no land for either side's LSTs to beach at and no room for Missile Subs to aim at any buildings behind the ANY, and on Under V2s would be able to hit the enlarged, further-right ANY from the Soviet base - further enforcing the "kill rocks ASAP" mentality. I get the feeling you did not design the ANY with "other levels" in mind
The ASP is also problematic for some of the same reasons. The LST spawn is on the right hand side of the building. On Under/CI this once again leads directly into a cliff. But the dilemma here is that the repair bay is on the left and we certainly can't mirror that without making it incredibly inaccessible on Under/CI and further encouraging Allies to spam ships down the short route on Pacific Threat since that would mean Soviets wouldn't be able to repair subs facing that route.
0 -
23 minutes ago, Raptor29aa said:
at some point the map went from being hostile waters to hostile skies then to hostile ice bergs. I think the map’s main point was naval combat, and I see too much ice berg and helicopter Skirmishes. I get helicopters are needed to break blockades, but their use should stop there. It’s called hostile waters for a reason.
I was thinking, if I go through with Greybox Waters, of taking a page out of the book of the RA expansion mission "Top of the World" - making it so any infantry who happen to find themselves stranded on the icebergs takes gradual damage (to the effect of taking 2-3 minutes to kill a regular infantry) because it's too cold. So you can't just camp out a wall of rockets on the bergs forever. I can understand not wanting to completely axe infantry from the equation however and I guess that led to the sloped bergs with ridiculous rewards.
0 -
10 hours ago, Raap said:
As a side note, the decision to axe Hostile Waters also goes hand in hand with the decision for the entire game to never create maps that significantly deviate from the main formula, and also to avoid creating maps with a focus on 'hold the middle'.
Really it's "hold the middle" combined with the middle being too easy to hold, basically required to hold, still being hard to launch an attack from, and then either taking forever to reach to try to break the hold, or taking forever to avoid.
On HW, it costs money to get to the icebergs (which seems to turn people off of making the effort no matter how much money grows on trees - see earlier versions of HW) and there are only a select few points the icebergs can be entered from which makes them easy to camp. Avoiding the middle entirely also takes a ludicrous amount of time.
On Siege, the ramparts are an incredible defensive position, nigh unassailable at times, and the ways around them are fairly lengthy. But at least there's more than one way around them now - it was such a dull map when your only choices as Allies were ramming headfirst into 10 indestructible Volkovs on ramparts, or taking a Chinook party the other way and losing all 6 of your guys to the 1 Hindkov that decided to stay at home.
Under doesn't seem to be at quite the same risk - the map is very small so it takes very little time to attempt to break the hold on the middle, and while vehicles only have one way in, infantry have three - not to mention there's the 2 backdoor base entrances for infantry (killing the rocks just makes one of those harder to use instead of removing them entirely, and there's a 3rd if you count LSTs) as well as the naval factor.
I'd say River Raid is closer to that, but I see surprisingly little vitriol directed at the map despite it having been permanently in rotation ever since the introduction of the remake in April 2016, and don't remember much hate for the original version of the map prior to Delta either. I've been long considering opening up the infantry-only cave/beach routes to vehicles to make the map less meatgrindy but at that point it may need base defenses.
Pipeline also has a "hold the middle" mechanic in its oils, but - again - is relatively open and small, and it's hard for a team to keep all the middle objectives under control at once because there are plenty of ways to reach them by foot and it doesn't take forever to do so.
All three of these maps also don't exactly have the strongest of base defense layouts - and River Raid doesn't have base defenses period. So a team "holding the middle" on them has more incentive to actually press the attack. Meanwhile Siege's defenses are pretty strong, and Hostile Waters may not have any frontal anti-boat defenses but the naval building is very easy to repair and very hard to interrupt repairs on.
TL;DR hold the middle, middle being basically unbreakable, bases being hard to attack, and gargantuan map sizes/long travel times is not a good combination.
If I can spare the time I might look into recreating the HW play space anew with basic visuals for the sake of testing how it might play if:
- the distance between bases was smaller
- the base layout encouraged attacking non-naval buildings for more reasons than just puntos
- the island layout allowed placement of AA in positions that could actually prevent a chinook from landing
- the icebergs were smaller and more spaced out so they could still be used as boat cover without suffering the current issue where they create passageways that force boats into single file and prevent them from turning around
- there was no "hold the middle" element
then if it tests well I can try to recycle Raap's HW assets for it or hand it to him and see if he can spice up the visuals. The naval repair bay might even get used for that as a teamed, killable structure so that there's another spot by your island other than just your NY where you can go to sell/repair.
1 -
5 minutes ago, Raap said:
The Chrono Tank really opens up a lot of attack possibilities on Siege for the Allies and in that sense it is a true counter to the Soviet Yak.
... Too bad the map is out of rotation still!
It isn't. Hostile Waters is. Siege just never got a chance to come up tonight with all the bot restarting
0 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Red Alert: A Path Beyond Update 
General
- Stealth shaders have been re-enabled, and there is now an option to disable them if they are hindering your performance (Extended Options -> Effect Shaders Enabled)
Infantry
Grenadier
- No longer available to Allies
- No longer available without a Barracks
- Price down (200 -> 160)
Mechanic
- Health down (70 -> 60)
- Speed up (7 -> 7.5)
Rocket Soldiers
- LAW back to being non-tracking and 100m/s
- LAW/RPG splash damage up (22.5 -> 25), radius up (6 -> 6.5m)
Spy
- Soviet players will see a Soviet flag when targeting him even when he is inside a vehicle.
Shotgunners
- Inaccuracy down (3 -> 2.5)
Vehicles
- If you kill a vehicle that has the "instant pilot death" property (planes and naval units that aren't beached), you now get credited for killing its pilot and passengers.
Chrono Tank
- Can now be purchased on Tech Level 5 maps for 2400 credits.
- Acts as a tank destroyer (it stands a better chance than a Medium Tank when facing down a Mammoth Tank) and a building harasser (while its anti-building power is merely on par with a Medium Tank's, shifting lets it evade base defenses and take attack and escape routes that other vehicles cannot)
- Press Q to open the overhead map, then left-click on a destination to chronoshift there. You can only shift to places that are within 250 metres of you (this range is shown by the white circle around your map icon) and are free of any obstacles, and after shifting you will not be able to shift again for another 30 seconds.
APC
- Points value increased (75 -> 100; now equal to Light Tank)
Minelayer
- Fixed 2 AT mines leaving heavy tanks on 1 HP.
MRJ
- Price down (1200 -> 600)
MGG (and variants)
- Windows no longer have the opposite shader settings that they should, so now they actually reflect like other windows.
Phase Tank
- Price down (2000 -> 1600)
- Is now visible on radar.
Gunboat/Destroyer
- Now have the same property as subs/LSTs, where being in open waters prevents the pilot from ejecting and causes the pilot to instantly die when the vehicle dies.
- Bobbing animation now includes them rocking from side to side slightly (1 degree)
- Gunboat range up (105 -> 110m)
LST
- Radar dish is animated again.
- Lowered target bone so that flame towers aren't so prone to missing against it.
- Should no longer explode and instantly kill you if you eject while not fully inside a beaching zone.
Attack Sub/Missile Sub
- When surfaced, they should no longer explode and instantly kill you if you eject while not fully inside a beaching zone. (They'll still kill you if eject when submerged though. So don't.)
- Attack Sub range up (110 -> 120m)
- Attack Sub projectile speed down (75 -> 50m)
Hind
- Band-aided the terrible unwrap on the tail rotor.
Yak
- Fixed scaling; it is now half its previous size, and comes to about the same length as a Heavy Tank - which is more accurate to the real-life Yak being about the same length as a T-80.
- Physical collision box now covers a little more of the wings - though due to the size reduction it still has a smaller collision area than it used to.
- Health down (300 -> 250) to compensate for the reduced size.
- Has its old "lenient in-flight hitbox" again to compensate for the reduced size.
- Homing weapons now home in on the tail of the Yak instead of the nose, so they are better at catching Yaks on the retreat.
- Build limit up (2 -> 3) since they take up less space on the runway.
Maps
- Reduced random field rocks on various maps
Complex
- Tech Level downgraded; only T3 vehicles are available, but T5 infantry are still available. (Do you really want to see Allies getting Chrono Tanks on a map that's already biased in their favour and would let them do base-to-base warps?)
Keep off the Grass
- Removed the wall near the Soviet OT route/CY.
- Moved Tesla Coil out to where that wall used to be.
- Removed Flame Tower from WF side.
- Moved Refinery Flame Tower closer to the empty field for reasons.
- Soviet resource field downgraded to ore. (It takes about as long to make a trip as it does on Camos Canyon anyway.)
- Allied OT now takes a little longer to get ore, to help keep it on more even footing with the reduced Soviet economy.
Ridge Racer
- Ranger physics redone; now heavily based off the standard gameplay Ranger (less flippable), main difference being it has less drag and a less restricted gearbox.
- Instead of just the original two Allied and Soviet ranger colour schemes, you now have 8 - the 4 standard Ranger camos, 3 of Pyryle's classic colour schemes, and hot pink.
- Technicians no longer receive damage from falling (a common source of accidental deaths when jumping through the portals due to how fall damage works) or from the finishing-line wall of barrels.
- Moved the walls backwards at the final turn to make it less obnoxious and less likely to result in pile-ups if multiple people race.
- Jukebox changed to the old theme song of Fissure: RenAlert Jam.
Ridge War
- Fixed VIS error on roof of Allied storage shack.
Seamist
- Allies now get an additional Light Tank when the 5-minute chinook drop happens.
- Tesla Coils downgraded to Flame Towers like in older versions of the map.
- Added environmental sounds (surf+birds)
[blurb]EVA: Chrono Tank ready.[/blurb]
[thumb]thumb_apb.2.png[/thumb]
7 -
9 hours ago, Raap said:
Instead, the bay area gets a teleport zone that teleports anyone that touched the water there to the top of the stairs, as if the character walked out of it.
So let's take a hypothetical situation where someone ejected their boat/sub a bit too far away from "land" for them to be able to jump on top of the sub or touch the boat's entry zone (because hey there's shallow water in the bay I don't need to be precise right?? Or just an accident) meaning the only way to get back in would be to walk underwater to get to it...
0 -
2 hours ago, Raap said:
Ship docking as well, as the exit transition is placed on the rear rather than the consistent left side that is applied to all land vehicles
It is very difficult to line up the port side of a gunboat or heaven forbid a destroyer with a pier, shoreline, NY etc while also making sure the very middle-left of your ship also has no space between it and the shore for your infantry to fall into, compared to just ramming said docking area with the stern of your ship. Figuring out just exactly where along the very long length of the port of your boat you will pop out would be a turnoff too. Having the exit be at the stern, which is much smaller, also makes it a lot easier to tell if your exit zone is lined up perfectly with what may very well be a very small piece of land to exit on.
Exiting at the stern also ensures that players with a combination of lag and impatience will not accidentally eject into deep water if they hit E one too many times while trying to get into their boat. A problem that subs don't suffer from because they have shallower docks that, when you accidentally eject, just allow you to get right back into the sub.
Exiting at the stern also means that boats docking at their own NY will occupy less space, leaving them far less likely to block purchase spots whereas exiting from the side could leave a boat potentially blocking both the gunboat and destroyer purchase spot at the same time.
You're really only going to make a mistake with exiting boats once, and when you consider that the only way to enter a freshly bought boat is from the stern (both in the regular and advanced ANY) it shouldn't be too much of a stretch for people wanting to get out to assume that you get out the same way you get in anyway.
2 hours ago, Raap said:Sub docking is untested on my part for the asset. I could add a bottom to it with a stair though, these would be purely mesh changes and nothing mechanical. I'll follow up on this this week, @Pushwall.
The way the sub pens are currently set up, the floor of the ASP dock's sub collision mesh sits at precisely 4 metres below water level and this is just shallow enough for an unattended sub to sink to the bottom of without exploding. Any deeper and it will explode, and don't go too much higher either or you risk the sub getting permanently stuck when you try to dock there; the regular sub pen uses 3.5 metres which is good enough to avoid that and leaves more of the parked sub poking out of the water.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Raap said:
Submarines cannot dock, because their logic prevents functioning when unoccupied.
That's only if they fall too far below sea level (as in 1 or 2 metres below). If the docking area has a solid floor underwater, which is also entirely flat so that the sub doesn't "slip" down into the water, then yes you should be able to dock there. You may have to add some stairs leading out of the water though so that you don't have to be aligned perfectly with the shore to get your infantry out safely (as due to the way exit zone logic works it is impossible to have an exit zone for subs that is "logical" or is guaranteed to place you on safe land). However, I haven't had the opportunity to look at the repair bay asset (there is so much more on my plate right now) so I don't know if either of these are already done.
Honestly, now that the "what about OP Tanya" issue with docking at sub pens on CI is solved, I should probably get around to adding some stairs/ramps/ladders out of the docks for the sub pen too.
1 -
21 minutes ago, Threve said:
One quick thing Pushwall. Is this animation or lock on marker attached to the HUD or Hud.ini?
Yes it is.
1 -
5 hours ago, Raptor29aa said:
I though the thief was too powerful of a unit and thus only put into the maps with AP mines.
He appears on Pacific Threat and Hostile Waters, those don't have AP mines.
He's still relatively fair on Pacific Threat because in order to steal money he has to run right through the middle of a base that only has 2 buildings with spawners and so will almost always have Soviets running through it, not to mention the fact that stealing from Silos gives less money than it used to (25% instead of 50%)
And he's fair on Hostile Waters because in order to steal money, Allies have to successfully sneak some Destroyers to the rear sides of the Soviet base (which takes forever and sacrifices field manpower for a long time) to kill the flame towers and then the thief has to successfully sneak the same route in a huge transport vehicle that is pretty likely to be detected by Hinds before getting there.
It's Tanya who is too powerful for maps that don't have AP mines and have buyable vehicles. I thought she might be tolerable for Hostile Waters since it is normally impossible to infiltrate the advanced naval building but apparently that was a bad idea.
0 -
In all seriousness I can't help but think of Fallout: New Vegas. @FRAYDO what do you think
1 -
Just remember that the map was definitely not made by the OP so please don't go into epileptic !skip fits when it arrives
2 -
1 hour ago, Jeod said:
The cost of the shock trooper is too high for the difficulty compared to the captain/kaptain. That's the skinny. I much preferred Gamma's shock trooper.
Gamma shock trooper was much, much harder to hit infantry with thanks to the existence of a chargeup timer + the inconsistency of said chargeup timer. Also you're solely using the captain as a metric to compare him to when the Gamma captain was well known for being in most ways inferior to the $0 rifle soldier (his health pool was his one redeeming quality) while the Delta captain seems to be widely considered to be pretty strong.
e: okay Gamma's infantry maps finally cooperated and gave me a shock rifle to shoot myself with as a non-shock trooper. Turns out that there was one thing making the shocky easier to use: he had enough splash damage to kill riflemen in four shots. That's six seconds of being in a firefight and not needing to directly hit people. Now it makes sense why my memories of Gamma contain hardly any grenadiers and hardly any flamethrowers that were doing anything other than "shapeshift into an AP mine"
Thing is in an earlier patch where his splash damage was 50% higher than it is now (still not much) it was not uncommon to see him bunnyhop spamming the ground at point blank range to kill pretty much anything with no effort required, which is the complete opposite of how infantry combat should be unless maybe if you're a flame trooper.
0 -
57 minutes ago, ganein14 said:
Just out of curiosity, is Camos Canyon the only tech 5 map with bot support?
The only tech 5 vehicle map yes.
0 -
Open one of the following maps in LAN mode:
- RA_CamosCanyon
- RA_GuardDuty
- RA_Metro
- RA_RiverRaid
- RA_RockTrap
- RA_Wasteland
Then press F8 to open the console and type botcount 20 or some other number - don't go too much higher than 40, too many bots can choke the game performance. And don't enable bots on maps other than the ones I suggested, those maps have incomplete pathfinding, no rally points and no list of preferred bot units, so bots will not work properly on them.
I also recommend the following settings:
- If you're on CamosCanyon, GuardDuty or RiverRaid, set starting credits to something lower than 500 (main server uses 350), so that bots can't immediately flood the WF construction zone with vehicles, because if they have the ability to do so right at the start of a match then it often leads to some awful traffic jams.
- Disable friendly fire as bots do not know how to stay out of each others' line of fire.
0 -
What do you need and in what format
0 -
41 minutes ago, Threve said:
I personally would just camp the repair spot and wait for other ships. Like I said with ship on ship combat being calculated I would be invincible untill I get gangbanged. If someone else captured the ship SD. I would just have to go a very long different route because I would guarantee loose any battle against them.
What if a rocket soldier or shocky comes up onto the icebergs around the repair station then. Do you continue to sit there and rapidly burn money and rapidly feed points/money to the enemy since you can't exactly fight back and it'll take a while for anyone else to deal with that guy, or cede your position? Nothing says we can't give this station a reduced repair rate either, like 3.75% instead of 7.5% so it takes 27 seconds to full repair instead of 14. Sure you still win 1v1s but nothing's stopping multiple units from engaging you, whereas SD logic dictates only one unit can repair at a time (and depending on how the structure is designed, you may not be able to get multiple vehicles in position to fire from the repair structure). And as mentioned, camping that place can be a liability if you're being attacked by something that you can't retaliate against. Which could either be a rocket soldier, or a dest/missub taking long-range scratch potshots at a gunboat/attack sub while covered by a friendly gunboat/attack sub that prevents you from engaging them. A dest/missub camping on such a pad is still going to lose to a gunboat/attack sub too.
53 minutes ago, Raap said:Then let's do the opposite and add a Missile Silo, because screw all logic!
41 minutes ago, Threve said:Also I’m down with the idea of a missile silo on Siege. Would encourage attacks more at least.
This may not be a bad plan. Air + nukes may have been a bad idea in the past with Zama but that was in part due to Zama having difficult terrain around the bases, the fog/lighting making it difficult to spot sneaks, AA defenses just not existing, and the dreaded unstoppable rooftop flares. Now ladders make roof flares less of an issue, we can now block flares from being placed in completely ridiculous spots like the top of wall segments, and we're on a map that suffers from a low base destruction rate anyway and bases are surrounded almost entirely by flat land and all the ridiculous cliffs are in the out of bounds (where flares can't be placed) or too far away from bases to cause noteworthy damage.
Now the question is how to handle NBNW. I only added nukes to that because we had a shortage of nuke maps. Do people like how NBNW plays with nukes, or should I axe them from NBNW when I add them to Siege? I guess this should be its own thread.
0 -
18 minutes ago, Threve said:
HW style of gameplay is to calculated with the ships and to long to recover or heal your ship/attack. There is no motivation for me to go out and attack
You know, at one point Raap teased the possibility of a "naval repair station" being one of the capturable things in the centre of the map. Sadly that never came to fruition - but now that I'm reminded of it I like the idea a lot more than the SD/refill pad which contradict the desire to devalue aircraft and besides the high speed of aircraft means they have no trouble just returning to base to rearm/repair anyway. As long as it's far away enough from the "beaching" spots on the icebergs that anyone in boats deciding to repair-camp has no hope of doing anything to prevent landings, it might not be too bad.
Trouble is again this is a lot of asset work that I'm sure nobody wants to do because there is no guarantee that this will magically fix everything wrong with the map and suddenly make it playable.
0 -
Just now, Raap said:
Up on the chopping block would likely be the Power Plant and/or Construction Yard, I'm leaning towards Power Plants as there are still a lot of defenses and support buildings, and manually repairing all of them is a pain in the arse.
Removing the PP is counterproductive if you want to make base destruction more feasible.
- You eliminate an alternative method of bringing down the coil/gap, therefore making frontal assault even more difficult than it already is
- The PP does not have to be destroyed to win the game
- Destroying the PP causes all damage to other main buildings to be multiplied by 7/6
0 -
8 minutes ago, Threve said:
For seige, maybe add a capture the flag mode instead where there is an objective in the middle you have to hold for 10 minutes and the team that holds it the most wins.
Ah yes, the thing that made RockTrap and FoI boring. Let's not.
8 minutes ago, Threve said:For HW ... add a nuke silo.
Raap has made it incredibly difficult to add/remove buildings from the map with his incredibly convoluted gameover scripts.
8 minutes ago, Threve said:Then maybe a iceberg that has some vehicles leading to the enemy base?
If I'm going to mess with these iceberg meshes that are very annoying to edit I might as well just remake and shrink the map.
0 -
Yeah one of my biggest pet peeves with HW is the size, but it's one of those things that's hard to bring up in a thread like this because you know that it's not easy to fix - you basically have to remake the whole map when resizing it
This was easy enough with Pipeline and North By Northwest as those weren't even ingame at the time I shrunk them down, and Rock Trap is a really simple map compared to these others. But HW has a metric whateverload of special logic and neat assets that would need to be redone from scratch. There are 715 metres between the two Advanced Naval buildings. And that's just assuming a straight line between the two closest buildings. Considering all the bobbing and weaving through icebergs you have to do even when undisturbed I'd put that closer to 800m. And even then, you have to avoid certain parts of the middle if they're controlled by enemy infantry, and you may want to sneak attack something much further back than the navy to get a points advantage, so it's not too likely to be that short either. If you're going around the outside of the map? 1100 metres from naval building to naval building, and 1500 metres from naval building to rear. Considering that missile subs are about the same speed as heavy/V2/TT, and destroyers are halfway between that and mammoth tanks, and LSTs are about the same speed as supply trucks - that distance is pretty damn painful. Now, compare these to other maps that are known for being painfully huge.
- Conveniently enough, the other controversial map in Siege makes you travel about the same distance of 715m from WF to base defenses - assuming a straight line to the castle and then another straight line to the defenses, since a straight line from base to base does not work unless you are aircraft. In that case, it's a 630m line. Haven't run extensive tests here but it's probably an extra 200m or so for going the rear of the castle.
- Ridge War: 550m from WF to base defenses. Probably about 800-850m for flanks.
- KOTG: 620m from WF to base defenses on either side.
- TTC: 530m from WF to base defenses via middle. Probably about 150m more for the far village flank, and 250m more for the ocean flank.
- Stormy: 430m from WF to base defenses when going through middle. Up to 800m on the MCV flank.
And to compare to the other naval maps:
- Coastal Influence makes boats travel 500m to get from one naval building to the other. Maybe add an extra 50-100m if hugging the outer cliff to avoid ground units.
- Under makes boats travel 600m to get from one naval building to the other. Maybe add an extra 50-75m if taking an outer route to avoid ground untis.
- Pacific Threat makes boats travel 620m navy-to-navy on the short route. Maybe add an extra 50-75m if avoiding ground units. On the long route it's 850m (900m) from navy to the first thing you can hit. But despite having a surprisingly long travel time, naval maneuvers are more likely to work here than they are on HW due to the map layout essentially filtering naval traffic into two "lanes" that take very long to move between (unlike the icebergs) and making it possible to hit certain non-naval buildings before you can hit naval buildings. You can't really have boats in the "middle" that can easily react to rushes from either side (okay, you can, but they'll die really fast to rocket soldiers that can hit the middle from pretty much anywhere on the map). It probably also helps that the 4 credit/sec economy (slower than what Raap insists on for HW, and also easier to disrupt) and greater focus on central infantry combat makes it harder to get counter boats or scout helis at every opportunity that they're required.
Navy just doesn't work when you have to cross such a long distance in such slow units and we certainly can't make destroyers any faster than they already are without breaking Pacific Threat. Ideally I think that maybe with 2-3x as much open space between each iceberg (so they can actually be used as cover instead of just being funnels that make boat traffic even slower than it already is and make you exceptionally vulnerable to rear attack) and about 2/3rds the current distance between bases, naval combat could work better on it, but then that leaves the question of how do the icebergs work when it comes to landing infantry on them and capturing stuff. :/ But this rant doesn't really mean anything because I'm sure Raap doesn't want to spend another year redesigning the map only to find out that all along this was not a good solution. I certainly don't - though I may do a greyboxing mockup of a "classic" HW - i.e. no capturables. Kinda hard to devalue air units when you have capturable facilities for them, and kinda hard to make it feel worthwhile to contest money buildings past the first 5 minutes when you have to spend $500 just to be able to reach the part of the map that they reside in and another $500 to be less likely to get insta-blicked by someone sitting around with an anti-bare-flesh weapon like a sniper or pistol. (Or in the event of last Hostile waters version, contesting money buildings is pointless when just your gem silo income leaves you with credits coming out of your ears.)
So with regards to the 1v1 ship battles thing. Maybe gunboat/sub need to go back down to having slower projectiles so that it's more feasible for them to dodge one another at long range? Maybe some more range too so that engagements start from further away and thus hitting is harder? Of course then gunboats would outrange flame towers, but on Under it's not hard to defend against that, their anti-building damage is kinda meh anyway, and on HW gunboats doing this want to make use of their speed and thus not be under the umbrella of a Dest and therefore they are easy Hind bait. I guess for Under I could flip the position of the silo/FT so gunboats have to go through the FT before they can touch the silo.
0 -
1 hour ago, Coolrock said:
While we’re at it, can we give the Thief a hat and sword?
Now that is something I've always wanted to see if only because the current model of "kid who thinks ninjas are cool" is kind of underwhelming. Fat chance of there being any character modellers around to properly accomplish this though, and getting the cape to flow properly with the existing infantry animations would be a challenge - I tested it before using a rudimentary untextured plane and no matter what bones I bound it to it would always look really unnatural or clip through his spine in certain common animations. And it would require thieves to be a little less useless than they are currently (adding a melee weapon isn't good enough). No point going to all this effort to encourage people to use it if it's still shit.
0 -
7 hours ago, Raptor29aa said:
To play devil’s advocate here. Wouldn’t it be more realistic for a Rocket Landing less than two meters from a solder to do more than zero damage?
In RA the Rocket soldier still did some damage to infantry (not nearly as much as grenades but that is a topic for another thread). The argument can be made for RS doing increased infantry damage. (But yes I do know the net code for splash damage is bad)
This is why I compensated the pistol removal with higher splash damage. The LAW now does almost as much splash DPS as the shock trooper before the shocky's most recent nerf (about 2.6-3.2 per second depending on distance, versus 3.75 per second - shocky now does 2.5). I don't think it can be increased too much more without stepping on the Grenadier's toes (4.6-5.5), though this would be less of an issue if the Allies just didn't have a Grenadier and its Soviet price went down to 160 as suggested by Coolrock, as the LAW's greater ROF means it inherently has more splash DPS than the RPG and therefore even if the rocket splash got buffed again there would still be a bigger gap between the RPG/Grenades.
0
APB 3.2.4.0 Changelog
in Red Alert: A Path Beyond
Posted
I wanted to do this, so that you can make the choice to have an easier time infiltrating at the expense of not being able to carry on the fight if you lose your phase. But radar doesn't work that way anymore
Even if I enable the option for passengers' radar markers to be visible, those markers are only visible while the vehicle is unstealthed, unlike back in Beta. So they got a price reduction instead.