Raap

I like the consistent stylized unit design, but the level design makes it feel mismatched. Given that you're not trying to follow APB's art style, what are your plans for a matching environmental art style? If I had to make a 5 second guess, I'd say a more vibrant color palette should be used in your environmental textures and level assets. Red Alert 2 was known for using a lot of strong colors so applying to it W3D based levels seems like a good direction. I'd also say instead of using real world photography as the bases if your environmental textures, instead opt for high resolution hand drawn terrain using previously mentioned vibrant color palette. Overal, good work! Side note, I wish APB had an infantry character artist, @Romanov seems like a great asset to your team, a true do-it-all guy!

Not quite worth making a new thread for but I figured maybe someone knows the answer: Recording APB in Shadowplay recently started to result in very dark raw footage (the only bright parts are the GUI). The raw material is simply unusable since I can barely even see my own infantry character model. Back during Siege's development, I did not have this problem. Any ideas?

Darker brown fits the Soviet color palette better.

You got a very fair point with "if done right". If there is a will, there is a way. And if someone was completely serious about adding a grenade launcher, then with some effort on the design, a suitable concept could be created, sort of like a rough and bulky "prototype" kind of design. But yeah, going slightly off-topic with that one. I'm all for iterative unit design with live server testing. Pushwaffles can come up with a few variations and give each a spin for a patch cycle, then stick with the most favorable.

I must point out that Level Edit isn't a "map editor" in the same sense as you have map editors for RTS games. You need to create your levels and artwork in 3DS Max 8, and the resulting exports can be loaded into Level Edit, and that is where you apply the game logic. Be sure to look at the tutorial section of the forum, but you'll need to start out with obtaining a copy of 3DS Max 8 - and since you can no longer buy this version of 3DS Max, you'll need to obtain a pirated copy... Unfortunately I personally cannot help you there since I don't own my own web server to host files like that.

3DS Max 8 doesn't play nice with Windows 10, while I solved a number of problems with it, it still continues to be a bitch. But this is just part of that big W3D development problem. I suppose this topic is essentially confirming once again what was probably obvious. But hey, making it didn't hurt anyone.

You can add things that make sense within the Red Alert universe. RAlism is this ideology that stepping away from anything within the RTS games is a sin. Red Alert has a lot of themes APB always tried to expand upon with a lot of creative freedom. Chronosphere technology is a backstory in at least two maps, stories that did not occur in the Red Alert RTS games but still make sense within the Red Alert universe. I believe you cross that boundary of sensible additions when you add weapons that are five decades more advanced in real world technological development. Maybe it sounds strange, but doing so seems off somehow, more so than time travel, due to the way these things are presented in the Red Alert universe. Just because some crazy inventions happened 50 years ago in a fictional universe, doesn't mean all other real-world technological advances have also been met within that fictional universe. Does that make sense?

New weapons aren't likely needed, since we got re-usable assets, although if it came to it then explosives and such things are relatively simple. A grenade launcher does not really fit well with the game, in my opinion. Anyhow, go ahead and experiment with the NAG Trooper (Not A Grenadier). I wouldn't close the door to a new unit entirely just yet if it turns out to not be fun.

I've not drawn any comparison to past versions given their irrelevance, but the Grenadier subject is an issue in the here and now due to the current gameplay (not just balance). The comparison to existing units is only noticeable from the Flamethrower's perspective and that can be credited due to the historical role purpose, and also in a large part due to Volkov's aesthetic differences and multi-purpose approach. Perception plays a notable role just as well, since currently the Grenadier cannot be seen doing anything other than the role historically given to other units. So again, this isn't really a balance thread, but a thread on the subject of unit identity within gameplay. Right now, the Grenadier is the odd one out, where as everything else has fallen into place a while ago.

One can argue that a master-on-none unit also serves a unique role, namely the versatile master-of-none role. As for the Sergeant, yes there is an overlap there, but it has purpose; One is a stock early game unit, the other is a Barracks-required early game unit. The Sergeant was added specifically for that purpose, to diversify the infantry game in the event a team loses their Barracks. So, no. The only really redundant role overlap that exists is with the Grenadier.

Yes I am aware of this being worked on. Such things would help a lot because it shifts the entry barrier away from 3DS Max 8 exclusively to whatever people are comfortable with using. As for how that would work, I have no idea. 3DS Max 8 covers a lot more than W3D export settings, it does WWskin animating and W3D materials as well.

It's probably better than keeping the Grenadier as-is, representing a duplicate role. But there is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box. The Soviets historically lacked unit diversity, I'd rather experiment with replacing the unit with a new concept, than merging it into an already small unit roster. As for the Flamethrower range, it's already very long and powerful.

The RPG Trooper already has a very clear role; AV and AA. It's also the mirror of the Allied Rocket Soldier, meaning that the RPG Trooper would become a more versatile unit (therefore, better). Going back to the unit overhaul idea, how about I add a proper example. Replace the Grenadier with a Sapper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapper), with a unit gameplay focus on sabotage, explosives, and maybe even a melee weapon (?!). The key mechanic could be remote detonated charges (scenario: remotely detonating a bridge while vehicles cross it), something we've not using in APB before, as well as (temporarily) proximity mines that temporarily disable vehicles when triggered (including Mobile Gap Generators and Phase Tanks, effectively adding a new counter to these units). To throw some homage to the Grenadier, equip it with non-lethal smoke grenades. Topping it off with a pistol or melee weapon, while all explosives and utilities are limited-ammo. Unit artwork could just be a modified Engineer model and texture for now.

@danpaul88 What we got with APB Delta right now is actually a bit of a mixture in terms of quality. Terrain and vehicles are pretty much running at W3D maximum capacity, where as all infantry models, naval units, and a portion of the infantry weaponry dates back to over a decade ago. What happened here is that the "low barrier" assets such as terrain were more easily updated by Pushwall and Chopbam (and a few other contributors, afaik), and with the bulk of that work now completed you are left with only the more challenging assets such as infantry models. With this approach, you'll end up running a never-ending cycle. Let's assume 5 years from now this project is still running, and that by then W3D has advanced further and thus allowing for more detail, ideally what we have then is that the present-day artists have decided to take on the more challenging tasks, opening the door for new contributors to work on other, low-barrier improvements again. But for this to function, you need a never-ending development chain, along with people interested in working on things. But here is W3D's key problem when it comes to maintaining a level barrier of entry: Normally, assets created today would be easier to create 3 years from now, due to development tool improvements. But because we're stuck in the past on this front, the "veteran" artists keep raising the bar, while no "catch up" via easier to replicate styles is created. There is no real solution to this problem outside of having more programmers work on the engine and tools, something which would also solve a lot of other issues such as the lack of appeal to utilize W3D for a free game platform due to the slow development pace - but I'm well aware of how difficult this subject is. Even if you went for a stylized design a decade ago, you'd still be running into this very same problem. To name a very well known stylized game; World of Warcraft, notice how even a "cartoonish" game can start to look outdated when you compare the 2004 version to the present day version - you'd have a hard time recognizing it as the same game. There is essentially no magic bullet solution, save perhaps for somehow conjuring up additional programmers to keep things moving and maintaining accessibility. I mean, good luck convincing a non-W3D artist to use 3DS Max 8 (and similarly, good luck convincing a newcomer to "obtain" 3DS Max 8), but if we had ways around this, we could solve both the accessibility issues as well as the outdated tool dependencies.

I would have expected more opinions in this thread, perhaps people find it difficulty to turn their impulse based thoughts into a feedback post? A lot of key-offending maps that do not pass without someone mentioning the Grenadier; Under, Complex, CanyonRiver, GuardDuty, and a few more. The pattern is obvious; Anywhere you can easily throw grenades from, and always in the early game since it is the most effective early game tactic.

Hey guys, So I've been making an effort lately to play APB more often (mainly to get back in touch with the game so that I can deliver better content). Now normally I won't openly discuss game balance as I leave that to other people, but this topic isn't really about simple numbers tweaks, it is about the entire unit design of the Soviet Grenadier, and why I think it needs to be completely overhauled and break away from RAlism in order to make more sense within APB. The in-game feedback about the Grenadier seems pretty consistent; A lot of people find it a cheesy, low-skill unit that is capable of dealing anti-structure damage at long range while remaining difficult to spot. The huge splash damage range makes this unit capable of an exponential power stacking increase that other units cannot achieve; Two Flamethrowers do not multiply in power by as much as two Grenadiers do due to a combined effect of DoT stacking limitations as well as limited splash radius. Similarly, two Rifle Soldiers are only better than one Rifle Soldier if their combined aim has double the accuracy. In general, the Soviet Grenadier is considered not a fun unit to fight against, but also it is not a very fun unit to play as, either. Due to the low skill requirement, the only thing you're left to do is move like a spastic person and hope your opponents remain within the swimmingpool-sized blast radius, and if there is no opponent in sight, just hold down the left mouse button to deal anti-structure damage from outside base defense range (like, is the throwing arm mechanical?). To top it off, the Grenadier is the best unit to camp with, which is often considered a poor form of play - but I confess this last point has most relevance towards the upcoming HW revamp. Finally, due to the anti-structure and anti-infantry focus, there is significant unit role overlap with Flamethrowers and Sergeants. In an effort to make it less obsolete the current balance came into being, solving what is essentially a symptom rather than tackling the root problem; the Soviet Grenadier isn't filling a unique role. All-in-all, the Grenadier is not a fun unit to fight or use, and it seems to me that the only reason we still have it, is to satisfy Red Alert purists (RAlism). So, Pushwall will likely end up spending more time tuning this unit, but the fundamental role problem will not be solved this way, as the unit will always represent a duplicated role in either an underpowered or overpowered form, and in the event of true balance, Flamethrowers still win due to their overal better appeal from a unit concept perspective. Therefore from my personal perspective, the only logical conclusion is to cut the Soviet Grenadier entirely, and in its place introduce a new Soviet infantry unit not previously represented within the Red Alert universe. What this unit would be, is a topic to be discussed. There are a number of infantry roles that the Soviets do not have in their roster, even a few which APB in general does not currently support. But lets assume the only limitation is creativity and that a fun to play and counter unit is introduced to replace the Grenadier, what significant and honest objections would exist for going down this path? And note that I personally do not consider RAlism a valid argument since APB is not an RTS game. Let me know your thoughts. EDIT: As to answer the likely question, where could grenades go? In reduced capacity and limited quantity, Officers or Rifle Infantry could carry a small amount, intended purely for anti-infantry purposes in small spaces such as building interiors. Reasoning here being that grenades as a mechanic don't have to be removed completely, plus it might help add more depth to the early game which is presently dominated only by bullet-based weaponry.

Yeah, the time involved in level design went up 300% from Gamma to Delta (and incomparable from Beta to Delta). Creating completely new levels from scratch and getting them to match the Delta standard is no small task. However it is a task that can be made more streamlined if we had an up-to-date public asset library. Currently each new map often recreates common assets like rocks and such things from scratch when all that time could be saved if we had an asset library. Asset-ripping is a tedious process as well that more often than not results in you spending as much time doing a clean-up than it would have cost you to create a similar asset from scratch. The idea of putting all these assets in one large file doesn't quite work since it makes it unmanageable when you want to add new assets, so yes, I think a true asset library would help cut down the development time of levels, and free up time for some new assets to be created per level, which can then be added to such a library. But, logistically, I'm not sure how to include such a "library" into the tools. It'd have to be something that is online, since additions and alterations should be added on a consistent basis - including version control for asset updates.

Could you mention your experience with this process, particularly the trouble spots?

Hey guys, Something crossed my mind this morning which made me create this thread, and that is, where did the talented level creators from the broader W3D community go to? Since Delta launched I've been the sole person to do the occasional level contribution. In past versions of the game, we had a number of people contributing content, so I'd like to figure out what caused this, and perhaps I can assist in improving things on this front. Is it a problem with the tools? The lack of available knowledge? Or something else? Community created content has always been a big part of past APB releases, and learning why we lost so much of it with Delta is something that might benefit all W3D Hub project teams as a learning point. So if you're familiar with content creation using W3D tools and related tools, vote in the poll for the items which stop you from contributing. And if you've never created content before, then tell me why not!

The exact how's and why's are best left answered by someone like @jonwil since people like him have handled the engine since the beginning.

Sorry, there is a problem We could not locate the item you are trying to view. Error code: 2D161/2

Hah, no not at all. It's just that the sandstorm only affecting the lower area of that level makes it look pretty cool, and I wish we had more advanced fog features to help improve levels. We use fog a lot in W3D, it's present in every single level, largely due to being required in order to hide the draw distance "clip plane", but also for gameplay purposes. It'd be one of those improvements with wide-scale benefit. Edit: Go google "volumetric fog" for some examples.

Scenes like this make me wish W3D featured more advanced fog capabilities.

Nvidia shadowplay works for recording (they renamed it to... not have a name, so everyone still calls it shadowplay). If you're looking for a free basic editing program, try https://www.shotcut.org/. It's not as fancy as something like Sony Vegas, but it is free and legal to use freely. Most importantly it allows you to process your raw footage.