• Announcements

    • FRAYDO

      W3D Hub Discord   02/22/2017

      Join us on our Discord server! Everyone is welcome in. Chat with us, organise games, and connect within our community. Click on the Discord image above for the invite! Or get it here! See you in the server!
    • FRAYDO

      APB Regular Playing Times   04/05/2017

      FRIDAYS, SATURDAYS & SUNDAYS 7:00 PM GMT (EU) & 9:00 PM CST (US)

Raap

Members
  • Content count

    890
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

2 Followers

About Raap

  • Rank
    Rocket Soldier
  • Birthday 09/04/1988

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Netherlands
  • Ingame Username
    Raap
  • Icon
    none

Contact Methods

  • Steam
    Raap

Recent Profile Visitors

6,262 profile views
  1. My proposed solution would solve this as well since there would be no incentive to use a spy over anything else that can actually guard the flare location. It would require a lot more team work. Unfortunately it seems that radical gameplay changes are not favored here, even if they would improve the game a lot.
  2. I'm curious, what was the reasoning here? Do large particles have some adverse effect on performance that small ones do not, or was it merely an aesthetic concern due to texture stretching (which could have been solved with the texture in use)? My question regarding performance aside, Pipeline allowed for some scenes not really seen in W3D, like this; I wish we had more advanced fog options on W3D as well as particle edge smoothing. Oh well! Add that to the pile of "Things-I-Wish-W3D-Had".
  3. It'd have to be considered experimental and probably only work with direct damage (so no splash damage). I'm just highlighting potential extra usage of such functionality, but my case for it with defenses stands, one needs only try to fight around the cannons on Siege to see that problem.
  4. I figured you meant that. On a side note, the Siege cannons cannot be copy pasted into other maps as easily as other defenses, they need an assigned failsafe exit teleport zone and destination, something you cannot do in a proxy. But as Siege's Cannons should tell you, player controlled defenses cause some oddities in a fight, when people use them to hide inside of them. W3D needs to support the ability to damage the driver(s) of a "vehicle" upon damaging a sub-hitbox, so that you can actually kill players to take control of a defense, and to punish people using them as escape shields in a fight. This would actually make Snipers useful as well, and have this expanded to certain open-cabin vehicles like Rangers and the various trucks.
  5. HW's problem is not the map scale or visibility. It is the lack of options for people who prefer to avoid naval combat. This was concluded after polling and feedback collection a while ago, and the new design is already "locked down", with one possible exception on the table; War Factory support if Naval Transports carrying vehicles are to become a thing. As a reminder, HW's revamp will include a "land" route for infantry, a new underground bonus objective, and a unique means of travel not seen before in APB. But anyhow, on the topic of Siege, what happens with the map is entirely up to Pushwall. I do not believe in a new land route however, it would just shift the perceived problem from the castle route to this new land route, which due to time limitations, is likely to be far more barren and lacking in cover than the castle route, which happens to offer more infantry space than any other APB map. Economic vulnerability adjustments, as mentioned, might help - or do worse. I'd say go and experiment.
  6. Infantry maps may be disliked for the same reason some people disliked HostileWaters; Too far a departure from core gameplay. I'm fixing HW with that in mind. But expanding maps like Fissure to solve the same problem would be a lot of work as well. FoI might make an easier cut via introducing new environments with a vehicle focus, you could create pocket dimensions to a long range of possible scenarios with FoI all thanks due to the weird modular setup. A lone iceberg in a sea walled off by a circular fog barrier but supporting ships, or an entrenched battlefield with vehicles, or a scenario that makes use of air power utilizing mainly low-polygon backgrounds for detail so the focus can be on, well, air. Either way my point is you can probably test the theory by expanding one of these maps and re-including it.
  7. Go for the extreme and try both, just to see what happens. The Soviets could rocket barrage them with RPG's from the cliff, the Allies got the forest for cover (might need some ground foliage added near the Soviet base forest side - I saw a cluster bush model that would do the job). It will help end matches sooner, but for better or worse, that remains to be seen.
  8. I've said it before but a lot of identification problems can be solved if you axe RAlism and redesign the transport to look more like something from Tiberian Dawn. You can add passenger seats and enough space to carry the largest vehicle it can carry (Heavy Tank or Tesla Tank). To prototype this functionality prior to committing art resources to the creation of a new naval vehicle, you can temporarily rip the Renegade model. To ensure you got the space without making the "LST" larger, you can trim the width of the exterior "walls" of this vehicle down towards more of a shovel end shape; Mostly flat near the forward end which carries a vehicle. This would solve some hitbox issues as well. Gameplay-wise however I firmly believe this mechanic should not be considered without this level of target and threat identification, but also not without the ability to damage the carried vehicle. If a transport carrying a Light Tank comes to shore after eating a direct V2 hit, it shouldn't "pop out" with full health.
  9. I'm not really kept in the loop on internal W3D progress, but that's how it should be. @Pushwall I gave it a short consideration, more of an impulse really, but feel free to try moving the Ore Silo's for both teams from the current locations and towards the refill and landing pad areas, outside the walls and outside of (ground) defense range. Let's see how the map plays out when critical economic support can be dismembered with less effort via either an air assault or a transport drop-off. It would bring forward the importance of defending those assets, and if failed, defending the Ore Truck. Economic vulnerability would likely improve the ratio of match closure due to base destruction rather than time-out. Or it makes the map play worse for the exact same reasons, hence impulse thoughts. I'll leave it up to you.
  10. Cant edit above post with quotes because shitty forum (enable source view please). But to respond: Yes, high damage cannons were a thing in the initial release. They were nerfed, due to feedback. Recent patch slightly un-nerfed them again, but not fully reverted the nerfs.
  11. That's news to me at least.
  12. The problem is that this deviates from core gameplay a lot. The topic asks why people may dislike Bonsai, I simply gave my prediction that it is the Missile Silo game logic. I could be wrong for sure.
  13. I find A-Bombs to be rather detrimental to gameplay, especially in lower population games. There is nothing you can do to defend from it when your entire team is on the attack, something which you have to do in the spirit of the game, due to the focus on teamwork. Bonsai and Zama both punish you for doing a team effort assault, and almost always the flares are placed in cheesy locations. I'm up for a revision on the whole A-Bomb concept rather than an outright removal. They can be salvaged to be more fun content and see addition to more maps for it. My proposition: Change the flare into an item that can only be placed in a designated "Base Center", this would be a simple patch of clear terrain in the middle of a base that is visibly clearly the center of the base (or the center of relevant base space). This eliminates the fact that flares can be placed in cheesy location and instead makes it so they can only be placed in this designer-designated location, meaning it becomes defensible. This location should always be covered by at least one base defense that needs to be destroyed before placement can occur. To compensate for this difficulty, should the A-Bomb land, it should be enough to end the match in defeat for the A-Bomb target about 10 seconds post-impact (to allow for the bomb animation to play in-game). Flare timers: To eliminate flares ending good matches too early on low population games, flare timers need to become dynamic based on the population at the time of placement. The curve would mean that lower population matches (1-6 players) result in a two minute timer, and slowly creeping back to the standard 60 second timer as the population rises towards 14 players. This is not a random number, as I find that most typical forms of team assaults revolve around 5 or so players. Having the timer scale towards the normal 60 seconds at 7 players per team means you on average have two people in your base capable of attempting a defense. I'd recommend not touching the flare purchase cooldown time for consistency purposes, given that it currently is already rather confusing to figure out when it is available or if your team took it, or if a spy reset it. If possible, add a message stating the cooldown time remaining on approaching the flare terminal. Just my thoughts.
  14. Oh I'm not going to vanish, I hope I didn't give that idea with my post. No, when Delta launched last year, I told Pushwall and Generalcamo (as well as publicly, I'm sure) that I'd be doing three contributions; HW, Siege, and a map I had to cancel to do a HW revision (so technically it is HW 3.0). I'd have finished up by now if I had the same working environment as I did earlier in the last year, but alas I do not. Once HW is done (again) I will see what I could do. I do believe it is the end of APB levels for me given that the project has reached a point of having enough maps and adding more would simply add maintenance pressure for Pushwall. My two cents on APB maps is, spend more time improving and adding to existing maps rather than adding entirely new ones.
  15. 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.