Raap

You may as well have spoken out a curse in some demonic language since I would understand both of these things at equal capacity, but sure thing mate, good work on what very likely translates into: progress!

@Pushwall Hm, weird!

Oh dear, I wasn't aware of anything of this sort being attempted. But I suppose if said project crumbled, then I wasn't far off. Purely theoretically speaking, a C&C3 project on W3D could find a very easy framework, since all art assets could be ported from C&C3 and be updated from there on. Which means you can play-test a proof of concept game quite quickly. All you need to do is rig the vehicles for W3D gameplay, rig a single infantry model per team for simplicity's sake, and create a single demonstration level using a strong artistic direction. From that point forward it's just updating the artwork while maintaining a healthy and logical preset database for gameplay. But the question is, can C&C3 be considered "worthy" like most of us perceive the Westwood classics to be?

I don't know about all W3D projects, but @Pushwall is currently working on a system that makes defenses a bit less static for APB. It likely won't be random spawn locations since that is not a very elegant solution ("amagad why is this flametower there, shit gaeme i quit!"). Edit: User tagging doesn't work on this forum.

If you can make it retrieve server information (players, map, ping) then that would be great as well. It doesn't need anything else that a full-blown launcher can do, but if it first pings the server for this basic info prior to actually connecting, then you'd know if connecting was worthwhile or not. I don't mean a full server listing here. I mean, you set up the connection info, and make the joining process a 2-click affair; First you get a server info window with map/players/ping, then on it you could choose to connect or cancel.

Oh dear, it's been 10 years since C&C3 came out... You think that game could ever reach the same potential as older C&C titles when it comes to mod/project adaptation? I mean, it was probably the only EA-made C&C game that people didn't universally held a hatred for. With Generals/ZH being a decent game but not really considered true to the C&C franchise, Red Alert 3 being a joke in bad taste made by some anime fans, and we don't speak of that other thing they made. Something nobody considered, ever: A C&C3 project on W3D? Madness.

Sometimes I miss the days of EALA during the C&C3 period, at least 'Apoc' and the back-then EALA management were much more open to the idea of community collaboration. After all, it was that period in time where EA perhaps weren't the company they earned their reputation for. It's such a shame they had to run that studio into the ground. Who would you even reach out to within EA right now about something like this? Besides, even if they ended up giving Renegade away, the standard installation doesn't even work properly anymore, to my knowledge. You'd basically be looking at somehow hoping EA ships out a (community-) updated client for a freeware version... But I'm not the expert at stock Renegade, so perhaps I'm wrong? I mean, I even keep forgetting who runs the server listing service these days...

C&C Renegade certainly earned a place in my small list of "favorite" games, but it is the community, modding and 'mapping' aspect of the game that really pulled me in during the early 2000's. Not many games can boast still having fans keeping parts of it alive, ~14 years past official support. It is unfortunate EA never released it as 'freeware' like they did with some of the older RTS games. I suppose they may eventually have done so if they continued making C&C games, but I don't think that is likely to happen ever again.

The server listing has been broken for a while, and even before the forum upgrade it took quite a while before the servers were displayed. No doubt this is a notable factor in the limited player retention, and I was sure you guys were aware of it...

In my opinion, base building has always been a gimmick that people requested "because it is part of the RTS games", not because it makes for fun gameplay in a shooter environment. APB's gameplay can be slow enough as it is, in certain situations. Slowing down gameplay even more just does not make any sense. If someone wants a game where base building is part of it, then you need to design your game around it. For starters, the conceptual condition of victory only being achieved through base destruction in a scenario where bases are not finite, is akin to placing a finish line in front of you but attempting to reach it while running on a treadmill. Essentially, you're looking at a fundamental gameplay framework overhaul in order to make construction work... And I'm not convinced about the single most important factor in game development; Is the end goal even fun?

Nice work! Edit: Browsing through your completed album, it's kind of scary realistic. The only thing missing is some sort of 3D viewer to more closely observe the scene you created here.

Are you asking if the modification of Renegade you posted two videos of, somehow was to be merged into APB or TSR? Ignoring any ethical or design concerns, what you're asking is also very impractical. Anything used on Renegade is most likely not easily ported to APB/TSR due to client differences, so whatever it is you wish to copy over, you basically have to redo. With that said, adding a 'game mode' isn't possible, since W3D doesn't understand that concept. You have maps, and within those maps is the gameplay you design for it, which in most cases is very consistent by design. There is no 'flip the switch to change the gameplay' option, but you can have very different gameplay from one map to another, that is actually one of the strong points of the W3D engine (hey look I made a public positive comment about W3D!). For example, when comparing my Hostile Waters map to other APB maps, you notice it is quite different in gameplay.

The defense route can work, and would be substantially less labor intensive to set up than map-specific solutions (and probably less confusing as well, consistency is important after all). But you cannot conjure up defenses mid-battle just like that, there are various considerations to make, such as what happens to a player standing in the position of a defense that is spawned? Or what happens if a base is being attacked when suddenly a player joins, activating the defenses and causing a (frustrating) slaughter? So no, an on or off switch isn't enough. To prevent base defenses from spawning in or out of existence, you need to make sure all defenses are present, but in a clearly visible "deactivated" state in which they neither function or give score credit, unless you'd want deactivated defenses to also be invulnerable, but that'd cause confusion. And to solve defenses enabling and suddenly murdering an ongoing base assault, activation should first be announced with a ~20 second time frame before actually becoming active, a long enough time for players to adjust to the change, as well as preventing people from using dummy accounts to log in or out to mess with the defenses. Scripting issues aside, you'd also need a compelling "disabled state" visual effect. The only problem I see here, is the inconsistency it causes with Power Plant logic. If these structures do not actually function to provide defenses with power, then their purpose becomes obsolete. Edit: But I don't think this is the topic for continuing this subject. One final thought though, out of the box: Rather than messing with defenses or maps, why not emulate "game speed"? Create three states of gameplay, one for 6 or less players, one for 7 to 12 players, and one for 13 or more players. For the lowest player capacity, reduce the cost of all units by 50% and health of all buildings by 50%, and 25% for the next tier, and standard gameplay for the largest player matches. The result here would be faster gameplay (more action, less focus on economics, quicker map changes, and solo players could achieve more in less time), and faster gameplay for lower population matches is the true goal with anything being brought up on this matter, is it not?

Mechanics that scale with player count are a very important step to move forward with, for all W3D projects. The problem is, these things cost time, and there aren't enough available hands to make it possible anytime soon. @Pushwall In regards to scaling map sizes, that might be easier than it looks. You need a single new script that destroys an object - or triggers a 'cinematic' effect that destroys an object - based on reaching a player count. This would then open a lot of creative options for enabling additional map passages if the population is good enough for it. Very plain example; StormyValleys construction site route could be blocked off by mountain rubble until enough players join the game that the rubble gets destroyed and the passage opens up. You can always go "more fancy" though and enable players to control such mechanics by having scripts not clear such a passage, but by unlocking a secondary objective that allows players to clear it... Returning to the StormyValley example again, instead of just clearing the rubble automatically, instead, do a secondary objective broadcast, spawn a special demolition vehicle in each base, and when it reaches the rubble site, spawn some explosive devices that can damage and destroy the rubble. Naturally, such things take time, and some maps are more difficult to solve especially if they are open, but there are countless ways to deal with that, and not all require you to change the map into a series of tubes. The only real hurdle is to have a set of scripts that can do versatile things based on a player count. Edit: This is ignoring anything AI related or anything that "toggles back off" again if player counts drop during a match... You can't (or shouldn't) magically summon a roadblock back when player 8 leaves.

Something I noticed you seem to have (accidentally?) disabled, is profile background images, a native IPBoard feature. I happened to notice it while looking at my profile messages.

Perhaps you should change the banner logo into something more general-purpose, it's both outdated and confusing when people go to W3DHub and then click on a forum that says "Reborn". Functionality-wise you miss a few things as well, such as a simple link back to the website. And "leaderboard" will be confused with in-game statistics (what is the purpose of a "leaderboard" on a forum anyways, posting is not a contest).

The light theme brings out a large contrast with all the different images and silly red texts, creating a rather crowded and messy look. also, bright backgrounds are generally less pleasant to read from for a lot of people. I had the 'pleasure' of working with IPB software for a few years myself, and the inability to modify simple things without delving into the code (not CSS) kind of bothered me, it had (has?) so little out of the box functionality. Edit: Maybe it's my headache but I keep reading my user title as something much more inappropriate...

You'd be surprised at which little things can put players off. Now of course I'm not under any delusion that W3D players come here for current-era graphics, but there is dated graphics, and then there is graphical errors. If the intend is to pull in more players, then you want to make sure you at least try to solve bugs, or hide them. In this particular case, in the event the lighting cannot be resolved for that object type, the remaining option is to move the source of light and object further apart, which will reduce the light intensity on the SD.

Do I need to explain how light works?

I absolutely hate how this engine cannot properly light some object types, look at that Service Depot standing out like it doesn't belong in the scene.

I realize that I'm out of my territory of knowledge here, but it seems to me that a cinematic could be used like that no? Like the helicopters do, but different? Just thinking out loud. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The helicopter fly-in animation is rather simple. Adding cinematic effects for say, a ship being created or a tank, that would involve a lot of work, and I don't think the War Factory logic allows for unique spawn effects - at the moment. Also keep in mind that you don't want to delay the pace of the game by forcing players to watch these effects every time they purchase something. So I think keeping it simple is key here, a clean, universally usable phase in and phase out effect for spawning and de-spawning (via script). Anyhow, just my 2c. I'm not the one who has to look into the programming feasibility of this.

Purchase a Destroyer, be sure to observe the spawn location - instant pop with no spawn effect. Not sure about regular War Factory vehicles, and aircraft don't need it due to their cinematic entry. I really think we could do with a properly well done spawn and de-spawn graphic and sound effect. Nothing extreme or vehicle-specific, but something universally usable, or at least easy to re-create. You're probably going to have to look at the spawn effect logic and see what effects can be tied to it (most likely this will require code support).

I suppose it is easy for me to forget sometimes that not everyone knows how scripts typically work in W3D, but yes, this script would be applied on a per-vehicle bases, attached to the vehicle preset data, without "globally" affecting all vehicles. The sole purpose really is to clean up naval units that linger unmanned for too long. You can go fancy about it too and add an alternate destruction animation to this way of removing vehicles, since them seemingly randomly exploding might be odd, where as phasing them out of existence via a fade effect would make more sense ("despawning")... An effect that APB vehicles in general should make use of upon creation rather than literally just popping up.