Raap

Feedback noted. I wish W3D offered a non-vertex based lighting though, currently that is the main reason why we use light so selectively; you literally have to draw the light onto the terrain via the polygon edges. The cave lighting on Siege took me a fair while.

Fabians Hourglass art style didn't fit very well with the general style of APB. Plus, like in Renegade, the map suffered from artillery camping from the huge central hill. The map would have to literally be flattened and then extended in length to solve that, as well as re-textured in APB style. Disabling air power would make a lot of sense as well.

Seeing as feedback and voting reached a pretty clear conclusion, I've forwarded my present thoughts to Pushwall and we will have to come to an agreement within the next few days on how to proceed. In the meantime, here is a draft for Hostile Waters "Redux"; Some extra insight into these changes: The new landmass will feature a new objective in order to integrate it into the gameplay properly, other than that, I will salvage assets from my cancelled "3rd map contribution (Frostburn Cove)". The new iceberg additions will not be made of ice, as editing the ice mesh is a bit of a tricky process due to the double mesh layer. Instead I'm opting for more industrial entry points and additional buildings, and generally making the icebergs a bit more industrial (more concept salvaging from my cancelled map, essentially). So yeah, industrialized icebergs are coming to APB. Abandon all logic ye who enter here. But the good news is, gameplay should improve.

I'm giving this a few more days before I talk to Pushwaffles regarding the best course of action to make the level less disliked. Thanks for the feedback so far.

Perhaps @Synaesthesia could make some time available to 'resurrect' one of his old levels and bring it up to current visual standards?

The poll so far (as well as the written feedback) show a clear indication there is at least a desire for a notable level terrain revamp. This will have to be a very substantial overhaul in order to have the desired effect, and I'll see what I can do without having to adjust the current gameplay logic layout by building terrain around those spots instead. The concern for naval-to-air balance follows up, but this I leave firmly in the capable hands of Pushwall. Hopefully, balance metrics from PacificThreat help out in this matter, if all infantry-generated data can somehow be omitted.

I've taken a moment to visualize how this would look, here is a "draft design": If the need for a capturable defense exists then this would be it.

That's for @Pushwall to respond to, since he opted to remove one of the two Ore Silo's I originally added to the map exactly for the purpose of speeding up the economy, while making iceberg control less critical for your teams economy (the SD and Refill Pad already are extremely helpful assets, the capturable Ore Silo's were intended as icing on the cake).

Generalcamo was quite keen on the idea of adding an underground section to the bases, but I was never convinced that they would add much to gameplay. Typically base tunnels become more relevant when land based approaches may occur and if entry/exit points exist outside the bases, otherwise they are just an isolated tunnel that people forget even exists. The fact HW plays different is intended, but I see exactly what you mean. Over a year ago when Delta was released, I had a lot of requests to bring this map back. I'm wondering if the changes I made to the map compared to the ancient version are the problem, or if it is balance issues that causes the drops. But I do know that a lot of people enjoyed the old version for being purely a naval-only map (the old version had no air power and the icebergs were inaccessible). Even if I made a straight line tunnel going from one base to the next, it'd still be long, longer than the tunnel under Complex, which is quite boring. If I created a tunnel system with what you described, it'd take 10 minutes to traverse by foot, and by the end of it, your base may have been blown up. On top of that, such a long tunnel would make zero sense to have in that region. As for bridges, something along those lines did cross my mind alongside adding a 2nd Naval Transport deploy spot near each base. If adding a land route was the decision to be made, then that is roughly the way I intend to go.

I believe that the primary objective problem can be resolved with a population scaling effect. In low populations, the Advanced Naval Yard/Sub Pen is destroyed too quickly and easily, while in large games it becomes nearly impossible (especially if Engineers become baseline on the map), correct? If this is the case, then @Pushwall can try scaling the Advanced Naval Yard/Sub Pen health DOWN as more players enter the game, although not by a crazy amount. As for air to naval balance issues, that's a topic not in my control but certainly something Pushwall could look into. The only problem is that this specific type of gameplay only exists on two maps, so gathering metrics and feedback can be a challenge. Finally, the lack of a land route seems like a common concern. The problem is, the map was never designed for that, and I remain uncertain if adding a land route will solve anything, because it would be a VERY LONG walk from base to base. But what I could do is spice up the icebergs some more by adding a 2nd Naval Transport landing area near each base. Do note that the icebergs have a rather 'rigid' design due to the second terrain layer wrapping, so adding to them will take a little effort, but less than adding a completely new land route. Edit: @Pushwall you may not wish to try and remove the Barracks completely, since they are connected into a web of script logic that is part of the base destruction sequence. Making Engineers baseline should be enough. After all, without rocket soldiers, air power would be unstoppable.

Baseline on this map, specifically. Baseline across the game was too silly a concept, that I didn't even think to clarify that. My bad!

A few notes before I got to go; The lack of the feeling of "pulling vehicles" doesn't appear to be the problem since other non-ground vehicle maps operate fine. Barracks destruction gimping a team is a problem, removing it might help, but making Engineers baseline might be easier - Although I'm not sure if that also goes for preset management (too many small differences in individual maps might cause development visibility issues down the line). If a land route lacking is indeed the problem; fair warning, this would be the most time intensive problem to take on, since it requires a major redesign, and won't look logical, while not being a guarantee to make the map more enjoyable. Air versus naval may need some tweaks in where naval units do more damage to them, or air units deal less damage to naval units. I don't think having your Gunboat blown up by a Hind which your weapon cannot reach is a fun experience. At least Submarines can hide from Longbows, but that also can be seen as non-engaging gameplay. Concepts currently on my personal drawing board for a potential Hostile Waters "Redux", please do not take these as promises, the actual changes remain dependent on the poll results; Improved aesthetics for ice appearance, iceberg infantry play space, and base islands. It goes without saying that developing Siege showed me there is room for improvement (and room to murder your frame rate). Include a few geometry optimization techniques I picked up after HW was released, this will counterbalance any visual improvements in terms of performance cost. CONCEPT STAGE: Capturable "Naval Repair Yard (working title)" - This might potentially replace the SD and Refill Pad in the event that the removal of air units is the change the map requires to have. CONCEPT STAGE: Capturable "Coastal Defense Missile Launcher (working title)" - If infantry-to-naval capacity is diminished and capturing made easier, a new capturable defense building may be added, likely non-AI controlled and incapable of aiming high upwards. The purpose of this would be to retain the value of holding the icebergs for defense, but in a more controllable fashion. CONCEPT STAGE: Additional bonus objective revolving around NPC teamed cargo ships randomly appearing on one side of the map and slowly sailing in a straight line to the opposite side. If the cargo ship makes it to the other side intact, the team that specific cargo ship belongs to receives a credit bonus. Destroying an enemy team cargo ship prevents that team from gaining credits from that ship. Cargo ships would respawn at specific intervals but at semi-random locations. The purpose here would be to divert naval unit attention to more open waters, away from bases and icebergs, as well as provide a second source of income besides the capturable silos. Disclaimer: Code feasibility undetermined.

I put it in there just in case. The poll is multi-choice, people can pick more than one thing. For example maybe the problem is the capture logic in combination with the lack of a land route? Maybe the capture benefits are too great and the icebergs too easy to camp?

Poll fixed.

Hello everyone, I had an opportunity to play APB earlier today and I realized Hostile Waters was removed from the map rotation. Recently I had a conversation with Pushwall about this map, so that decision doesn't surprise me. But what I personally haven't been able to determine is why people dislike the map? So here is a poll, I'll give it a few days to let it generate a clear result. I'll discuss my options with Pushwall after that, so that I might perhaps obtain the updated assets and do some overhauls - if the map itself is the problem. Meanwhile, let me know in this thread what you believe could be the problem Hostile Waters has that causes it to make players leave the server when it comes up in rotation, and I'm open to suggestions.

Note the highlighted part you missed in your quote; for example. I didn't comment on actual balance, I simply brought up a new method of balancing high population issues that don't exist in low population matches.

Fortunately the door to population scale based balancing seems to have been opened. If a clear signal is given that Soviets consistently win matches in 20+ player servers using, for example, coordinated Mammoth Tank assaults, then you can say if the server reaches 10 Soviet players, Mammoth Tanks get 10% less health, and 15% less at 15 Soviet players, and 20% less at 20 Soviet players. Perhaps an easier "global balance adjustments" script can be created to more easily manage this by loading separate ini files based on certain population thresholds, rather than updating each preset manually. But then again I generally am a strong believer in scaling content in general, and I think the more you use of it, the better adapted W3D games can play in any population scenario.

This is probably something the launcher package should offer in some form (along with a responsive server browser and lobby!). APB's main source of population issues is the lack of server visibility.

You might want to re-enable the dirt filler mesh anyhow, since it also covered a lot of terrain issues that cannot be resolved from 3DS Max (places where to meshes meet leaving a 'seam' that cannot be closed despite all vertices of both meshes being in the exact same location).

They also served to protect against "wall glitching" which plagues infantry cameras in APB. With them gone, people will now be able to view what is behind the castle walls and also beyond the map itself. As for the map secret, it is a complex mess of scripting logic. If it turns out this was the reason for performance issues, then it seems I've stumbled upon a script issue first of all, but secondly it also means I won't work on such side-features in the future.

Cheesy/comedy way of getting vehicle reinforcements: Drop in Soviet vehicles by cargo plane without parachute but iron curtain invulnerability, and chronoshift Allied vehicles. For those odd bases where conventional means are impossible. I still think some failsafe game ending mechanic is needed, one way or another. But that doesn't have to be mutually exclusive to "backup vehicle reinforcements", both serve two different purposes.

Chat commands or anything that requires player input on that level isn't very intuitive and should be avoided. I suggested Pushwall's idea many months ago already, and I believe steps like these are essential to maintain a steady map turnover rate with minimal "boring downtime". I'd even say limit the 3 minute grace period to 60 seconds, which is enough time to destroy a building if such an attack was already in progress. One thing to avoid here though is having a script sequence take out an enemy base via destruction logic, this would then always default the victory to the team that destroyed all production buildings regardless of the other team doing the same within that 1-3 minute period.

That Angry Tank though...

Didn't see the racing map in live play, but from the looks of things it needs power-ups (Mario Kart style) to work. The moon map is comical and just shows the things you can do on the W3D engine.

Perhaps some of the scripts guys can look through Siege with their Magic-Finding tools. Determining if the map puzzle is a factor or not should likely be the first step towards solving this one. It'd be a shame to axe it though, since it will also mean I won't work on something like this again due to the chance for screwing up performance (which isn't worth the risk for something with limited pay-off). Edit: I do think the bulk of Siege's geometry is quite well optimized, although I do use a larger than normal number of collision meshes in order to make visual effects not burden gameplay.