Raap

Here is the max files for the cart rails. They are fully functional but requires some LE configuration. https://drive.google.com/open?id=15Ew6xxk6PNsJTOi0lEOcen03cO-2Byjd A lot of complaints were regarding that the map was too difficult to finish via primary objective. Based on this feedback, Pushwall reduced the number of defenses. This updated version improves the map in a few different ways: Expanded iceberg accessibility by increasing the number of landing areas from 2 to 4, as well as expanded the play space by an additional two icebergs. Overhauled both base islands to resolve key shortcomings, most notably the extreme ease of LST assaults due to the open space. Improve the economic situation and remedy the slow game progression by introducing a "new" structure; the Gem Silo. It includes new art and audio. General iceberg infantry play adjustments; More cover, more opportunities for balanced air versus infantry engagements, less emphasis on requiring Engineers. A lot of aesthetic improvements, from water to icebergs and more. And a few other smaller things I don't bother mentioning, such as a lot of game logic updates.

Life signs, the best kind of signs. Preview of the revamped Hostile Waters, Soviet base. Key feedback was always that LST landing parties had too many easy angles of approach, so each of the two bases are gaining some significant terrain changes to make attack routes more defined. The Allied base uses more natural terrain for the same purpose, while the Soviet one uses more industrial themes, an approach I also used back on Siege. Note that I'm having a few strange issues that are roadblocking further development progress, so as of now the only thing I can work on is aesthetic changes and general terrain changes, such as this one. This means, no ETA for when I finally get to complete this APB level. Upon delivery, release is entirely the decision of Pushwall. Added note: Due to time restrictions and concerns regarding network based gameplay behavior, the rail cart system and related underground tunnels have unfortunately been cut from the reboot project, despite having been largely completed already. I figured I'd make this a post regardless of the lack of substantial 'meat', I might post future updates in this thread however.

What is your 'new targeting dialog'?

I'm just very curious how you've managed to do this. I mean I understand you use a custom scripts/code base not compatible with for example APB or more recent 'official' script build releases, but I'm wondering if there is anything I can learn from your approach to account/character persistence so that I might perhaps apply something - on a vastly smaller scale - to other project contributions. Perhaps you want to keep things secret? Either way I'd love more specific details. All I got right now is speculation where I presume you do a lot of server-side data manipulation with minimal client input, but for all I know you could have created new methods of client <-> server communication to achieve some of this persistence.

So the persistence of the game is cross-map? I'd like some more details on this given that ECW appears to lack a general project feature overview or generally just explaining how it achieves what it does.

If ships/subs end up 'joining the map' as a reinforcement from off-map then you don't have to worry about bots entering/leaving them using the APB naval gameplay rules, and also you bypass the 'traffic hour' at naval production sites. As for submarines with AI, perhaps you can create a special AI version of submarines that are actually ships in terms of physics but with a model that dips below the water surface and a hitbox that only slightly hangs above it. Then perhaps you could figure out a firing animation sequence that moves the submarine's non-physical model upwards before firing, and then back down again. As for making them invulnerable, I think you should avoid making AI units invulnerable else you got other AI entities still trying to fire at them. Just thinking out loud here, but the obvious downside of this route is that AI submarines will never truly submerge beyond ~2 meters in appearance.

@Jerad2142 Your always2.dat is the largest file, perhaps it would make sense to split it up into several smaller files to prevent issues. Although I'm not sure how many always# files the game can read. Edit: Question, how persistent is the game? I logged in again today and lost essentially everything, so I take it when the map reloads all data is reset? It feels a bit weird having 800k vanish just because of a reboot or crash in a game mode like this.

Not the type of gang I'd like to run into alone in a dark alley. I'd like to keep my pants on, thanks!

Can the AI be easily scripted to send engineers to enemy-owned oil pumps on Pipeline and capture them or guard them if owned by the same team (and not stand there trying to capture something that already got captured)? I ask because this would solve the tedium of Pipeline in low-population matches greatly. It'd be a great quality of life update for the map and perhaps something to keep around even in larger population matches. If the AI understood the concept of water and submarines (or elevators) then I'd have looked into doing it for Hostile Waters bonus objectives as well, unfortunately I doubt this is currently possible and even if it is I can only imagine the hell scenario the gameplay logic setup would be in the development tools - naval already is a hell scenario to work with.

@Jerad2142 Your always2.dat is the largest file, perhaps it would make sense to split it up into several smaller files to prevent issues, such as the launcher appearing to 'hang' on it. Although I'm not sure how many always# files the game can read.

Sorry to ask since I've been out of the info-loop a while, but was there ever a consensus on having scaling AI participants as a default gameplay feature until enough players joined a match for them to stop respawning?

Oh, but do not misunderstand me, I think it is an excellent showcase for W3D capabilities and Jerad did great work on all the game logic involved, you can tell he spent a huge amount of work on it. This would be a game to compete with modern day releases on the gameplay front, it is just unfortunate the other aspects of this old beast are showing their heads, but this is a problem that affects all W3D projects equally. Jerad has achieved some things I've personally always wanted to try, such as the large scale singular game world with persistence. Now I've personally made a few quick stabs at alternate gameplay, the axed 'secret area' on APB's Siege is a good example and so would have been/will be the rail system for another APB level, but Jerad took this flexibility to a whole new level. There are some other problems to iron out, such as graphical bugs performance issues in some conditions, but what's been released is something to be proud of. That said, I can only imagine how hard it must be to work on a level with that many gameplay logic implementations, when I already go nuts over 3DS's slow-arse performance of maps significantly smaller than that, and punch kittens every time APB's naval logic needed changes applied! Edit: Bonus note on the 4000 meter view distance, that really changes the way you look at a W3D project.

This is the weirdest game I've ever played, and I've played a lot of games. It just goes to show the gameplay versatility W3D can handle. Unfortunately W3D's shortcomings do show; poor physics, and extreme vulnerability to latency in the form of rubber banding. As for the objective of the game, I'm absolutely clueless, and cannot really comment on it.

Maybe tie some stationary defenses to it, or an area-effect buff that remains in a controlled area. Siege's cannons were an attempt capturable defenses, but truthfully the lack of 'killing the visible passenger/driver' engine support is a bit of a downer on the gameplay, but I'm sure via capture logic more sensible things could be done, like ejecting all drivers upon an ownership change. But then there is that little matter of creating a new type of player-controllable defensive structure without visible passenger slots... Edit: Imagine Siege's cannons but ownership changing via a central control hub captured via a king of the hill progress trigger, this would solve a lot of shortcomings, and more importantly, it would make more sense for a 'tech lab'.

Nice to see another update! Any plans to tie a capture logic to the tech center? Not that I'd know what it would unlock right at this very moment, but I'm sure conjuring something up wouldn't be too hard! But anyhow, I really should finish that map I was supposed to finish a decade ago...

Don't get me wrong, I could produce a standard map quickly enough. But anything with custom gameplay or sensitive things that haven't been tested in live play for a very long time (horizontal "elevator" logic for example) requires access to a sizable playerbase for a verification test under pressure. Given that is presently a no-go, I no longer really knew on how to proceed to finish a map which's entire revamp conceptually revolved around this "new" means of transportation - my last test was literally a decade ago under low pressure. Now, I always got a plan B or even C. W3D's greatest strength (one could argue it is the sole reason W3D projects still exist with so many alternatives available), is the ease of changing up mechanics by re-purposing other assets or scripts relatively quickly. So in this case I could drop elevator logic for vehicles with complicated function checks, or fall back to good old teleporters, the bane of all things gameplay immersion. But, hey, backup plans are never perfect. Anyhow, end of topic hijack!

Those pesky APB standards, eh? Let me know when AR - or TSR - approach a release, I'll reserve some time then to do a one-off contribution, should assets be made publicly available. I would have already done something for APB by now but the idle times aren't encouraging.

Probably not Doge Simulator 2017.

That mod had some pretty cool ideas. It did not feature traditional C&C mode gameplay, but instead offered, among other things, a 'defend the MCV' mode where two teams had a moving MCV on the map, they had to defend theirs while destroy the one of the opposing team. There were other modes as well, including a ~50 round battle against ever increasingly more difficult waves of AI opponents, which even included a spectator mode for players via cameras you could toggle between through a console. It just lacked substantially in the graphical departement and was a true mod - not stand alone. It also, as far as I can remember, launched, shined for one or two patch cycles, and then support was dropped by the creators. But outside of anything featured on W3DHub, it was one of the better W3D projects of that time. But yeah, that old project had gameplay components I sometimes used to wish I knew how to easily repro in an APB project, but the source assets of the project are gone and so is the scripts support of that era.

The questions are very generic and it is evident the interviewer did no background research into any of the W3D projects. It's also a bit silly to ask a question - have it answer a related topic - and then ask a question that just got answered a moment ago. But hey, good effort I suppose?

You should then just consider axing secondary base defenses off that list. It is impossible to tell their location from that list anyway. I'd trim the list down to key essential for easier quick-overview, and in case of special map objectives, it can be used to track objective ownership (as it does with Hostile Waters already). In terms of logic I'd say make an exclusion exception for all existing secondary defenses (Pillbox, Turret, Flametower, SAM Site, AA Gun), but ensure the default behavior of new or other entries is to list them.

I got curious so I checked in-game to see if this ever got resolved, but unfortunately it has not been. It is not a resolution problem, but a hard limit on the maximum displayed strings (text lines) on that page, I'm presuming the stuff's hard-coded and tricky to solve. ( @jonwil ) Here is the same menu in a more common resolution (1920x1080), note that imgur downscales/sizes images to potato quality these days.

For what it's worth, I found no errors, using Chrome myself as default browser.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in expressing my thoughts when saying "I do still believe Delta to be an excellent state for the game". It doesn't need a massive gameplay revision. It just needs engine improvements to help it not feel so aged, graphical enhancements, and content additions on top of what is already there. Package these three things in one named patch and promote it a bit, and that's how you 'revive' a game. Just my 2 cents of course, but having worked on 4 different iterations of APB (starting as a scrubby fan in the .99x days), Delta easily beats them all despite using the same engine and tools.

You might be mistaken here, because this new ice effect did not exist in the old map. Anyway, threw this on the "Things I'll do last" backburner until a consensus is made regarding whether to keep it or axe it. I'll contact Pushwaffles later this week to ask where he stands right now in terms of ideas for reviving APB - again. I even got some theories on this myself especially given the likelihood of an impending C&C franchise revival by EA, so the timing might be right for it next year. I do still believe Delta to be an excellent state for the game and it deserves a bit more time in the sun, so at the very least Delta could be used as a framework for an eventual "Omega" or something equally silly sounding.