Raap

Give it a Camos Crossing treatment and you got yourself a solid map with more clear objectives. If my Siege poll is any indication, domination mode can use some work anyhow. Also read your PM's Chop. :<

Looks like Stormy Valley needs a Coastal Influence-level solution to fix it's issues. I'm surprised nobody is really LIKING or HATING the infantry maps. I personally would have axed them if it were my decision, until I could redesign them to feature base gameplay. Should be easy for Fissure, not sure how to handle it for FoI, and RockTrap has a scale issue that would make adding bases quite hard, but doable if the Camos Crossing approach is taken.

First QA testing session is concluded. Expect significant map layout changes based on feedback. The biggest change will be the removal of Missile Silos as they turned out to be too much of a negative effect on gameplay. Another big change will be a dramatic overhaul of faction bases.

Here is the current situation: Current progress based on rough estimates (updated May 27th): - Main terrain (grass, hills, mountains, water): 90% completed. - Main foliage (trees, bushes, grass, seaweed): 40% completed. [Further progress pending 3DS plugin] - Castle (balcony, ramparts, courtyard, interior): 70% completed. - Shorelines (waves, underwater, rocks): 80% completed. - Ore mines (developed as re-usable map asset): 100% completed. - Base detail (crates, barrels, containers): 20% completed. [Further progress partially pending 3DS plugin] - Core game mechanics (buildings, C&C Mode): 100% completed. - Siege mechanics (Cannons, alternate objective): 50% completed. - Miscellaneous LE tasks (music, map script zones): 50% completed. - Environmental audio pass (water, wind): 100% completed. - VIS (aids): 0.00000% The ore mine is done, and designed for optional re-use in maps via proxy placement (it's basically a building). Once Siege is completed, people can use it if they wish. It took more time to finish the mine than I anticipated since I had to make sure there were no light solve oddities. Edit: Erf, since I got nothing better to show, here is said mine: Some of the smaller details are hard to spot from these camera angles, such as electrical wiring.

Ridge War is a solid all-around map. I don't really have a true favorite however, there is a bunch I like, and a few I like less. As for flares, Siege will have a flare deploy rule (script zone); You can only place flares on "normal terrain", meaning if you're standing with your feet on a mesh that is part of a building, the game will tell you "NOPE!". Which means flares have to be put in the open or near other terrain cover. If this proves to be successful, perhaps we can see it become a rule across all APB levels. I went this route instead of only blocking roof flares, since flares not being place-able on buildings altogether is much more straight forward for players to understand. (Edit May 29th: Siege will not feature Missile Silos any longer, following testing feedback.)

I've been unable to reproduce random results in local testing, so this certainly has to be a server issue. Interesting nonetheless, but the only solution I can quickly think of, is changing the way the Engineer golden wrench/spanner/thingy functions, from 100 rapidly fired 'shots', to ~10 slow fired shots with a ~2 second cooldown in between shots, this way miss-fires are impossible, and the server won't have a seizure trying to keep up. I added a solid secondary infantry focus as a backup in the event naval balance was unfixable on its own with just naval units, and also to ensure more varied tactics exist. I agree however than infantry are extremely powerful on this map and certainly more so than I hoped for. If it were up to me, then the tech level for infantry gets bumped down to Engineers/rockets/RPG's only. But I can understand why Pushwall might not be looking forward to doing so, as a custom purchase list on a specific map means additional adjustments whenever the purchase roster is updated. A good example was the recent Grenadier changes not affecting Hostile Waters until a follow-up patch addressed it. The logic here is that Hinds can approach the refill pad while below the cliff the SAM Site is located on. That same SAM Site had a much wider field of view towards the Allied base due to the downward slope facing them, so I added that wall to even the odds. Frankly however, the capturable buildings are already extremely useful, and I'm thinking right now that the SAM Sites are just making them unnecessarily important, by locking down airspace. @Pushwall: If you were to wish to remove those SAM Sites, don't remove the SAM presets since the capture scripts will go berserk without a preset to flip (Danpaul was made aware of this issue during HW development). Just remove the AI script from them instead so they'll remain dormant.

The terrain has been overhauled and this is one of the improvements you can expect. Although in some areas I went about it in a different way, relying more on vertex drawing to give areas a more natural look. Here is one example, keep in mind that the shorelines aren't finished yet and foliage isn't added yet.

NEUTRAL buildings capture faster and cost less "ammunition". Capturing buildings owned by an enemy team costs double. I don't have the exact numbers anymore since a recent patch lowered the strength per ammunition "shot" of Engineer golden wrenches/spanners/thingies, which had the direct effect of making capturing buildings harder. Edit: Anyhow, some good news (I guess?), the Medieval Cannons on Siege can be repaired back up again using ANY repair tool, including the Technician version. You won't be locked out of these weapons if your Barracks decides to prematurely exit this plane of existence via chrono vortex.

Current progress based on rough estimates (updated May 27th): - Main terrain (grass, hills, mountains, water): 90% completed. - Main foliage (trees, bushes, grass, seaweed): 40% completed. [Further progress pending 3DS plugin] - Castle (balcony, ramparts, courtyard, interior): 70% completed. - Shorelines (waves, underwater, rocks): 80% completed. - Ore mines (developed as re-usable map asset): 100% completed. - Base detail (crates, barrels, containers): 20% completed. [Further progress partially pending 3DS plugin] - Core game mechanics (buildings, C&C Mode): 100% completed. - Siege mechanics (Cannons, alternate objective): 50% completed. - Miscellaneous LE tasks (music, map script zones): 50% completed. - Environmental audio pass (water, wind): 100% completed. - VIS (aids): 0.00000% QA version one will not have everything 100% completed, but many things will be nearly completed. Edit: Finished up an "APB Cut" edition of Crush Remix for Siege. I've removed the speaking segments and seamlessly transitioned te remaining parts of the track into a single one. You won't even notice it has been cut up when you listen to it.

The base defenses serve their purpose; Slow down game pace. You can't rush the naval buildings without taking them down first. I agree with the rear/side iceberg defenses however, they aren't doing their job very well and are effectively redundant. I share your concerns with the barracks. Unfortunately, the way the capture logic works, it requires a special weapon warhead to change capture progress on terminals, in this case, that is the Engineer golden wrench/spanner/thingy. I actually brought this up to Generalcamo/Pushwall when I was designing the objectives, foreseeing exactly this scenario. Unfortunately, the only solution is to give Technicians a capture tool... But thats game-wide, and therefore something for Pushwall to decide and not me, and from his perspective adding such a tool is hard to justify since only two maps would make use of it (Pipeline, Hostile Waters). It would certainly solve the capturing of objectives issue however, something more maps will see usage of as time goes on (Siege will be another one). (Edit: Actually I might be a bit wrong here, I can't recall the exact limitation.) As for making the map brighter, there are aesthetical concerns with that, since the map is designed with night time in mind (lights, texture effects, etc.). I'm not sure what possibilities exist for map times. Do keep in mind, not everyone likes Hostile Waters (not everyone likes every map), adding 10 more minutes of it means some people got to play 10 more minutes of something they do not enjoy.

On map balance, if there is any major concerns with Hostile Waters, then let me know about it.

I'm not sure if we can even fit a War Factory on the Hostile Waters islands... Unless it was underground... But that doesn't work with the current script implementation of "water".

Unless something dramatic happens it's pretty much a done deal. Even the current version is already playable. I'm just fixing/improving/updating terrain visuals.

I always have the option to make the Helipads invulnerable (no target info but still re-supply aircraft as well as enable purchasing), and simply have it blow up when all other buildings are gone. But that's a gimmicky approach I very much prefer to avoid. More base defenses can always be added, I'm just waiting for play-testing feedback because I don't want it to be a stalemate map - Granted, the alternative victory condition takes good care of that regardless, so my concerns are likely misplaced. TLDR: Changes depend on testing feedback.

Don't be alarmed by the seeming appearance of symmetrical map design, there is in fact a lot of asymmetrical balance in place, for example the Soviet side of the castle has an extra way of getting onto the castle walls. Ultimately however, balance is something play testing has to point out. I have largely overhauled the level terrain (and I do mean that, big reworks have gone into the terrain in order to make it easier to adjust when needed later down the line, plus it looks better). I can even still make another infantry route to the opposing base via the river area on the opposite side of the castle, as a last resort (currently that area is "reserved" for air to air combat). Quite a few hours have already gone into Siege. I'm still on schedule for an internal QA release this weekend.

APB Delta does push the standard quite a bit. The amount of time that goes into a map today, would have been the equivalent of 3-4 maps around 8 years ago. It certainly keeps me on my toes to try and maintain a similar quality level for my APB contributions. Good to see progress on this project!

Current favor is towards the new concept. Giving it a few more days to increase poll sample size, but I don't expect the overal voting percentage to change. If a large majority wants the new concept, then I'll see what can be done to realize it. Keep in mind I could bump into scripting limitations.

Small update (but big in terms of development time): The map has been re-textured from scratch. In this process I've split the map terrain file up in two for easier material management; a main terrain file, and a castle file. In the process of re-texturing I've managed cut down approximately 300 unnecessary draw calls without a loss of texture detail, via merging mesh while retaining UVW coordinates. Also, additional texture detail added in places that previously did not have them. Finally, and this will impact gameplay slightly, both team bases will be thematically different; The Allied base is on a grass surface with lots of grass, shrubberies, and trees. The Soviet base is on a concrete/dirt surface with more industrial props laying around. Current estimation is that W3D testers can get their hands on a playable version of the map (without alternate objective) this coming weekend.

Worth mentioning is that the reason Siege will receive an alternate victory objective, is that a base destruction victory is even harder to achieve here than in Hostile Waters. The map needs an alternative way to end, otherwise many matches risk running until time-out, and that would not be ideal especially if one team lost a critical structure like the Helipad. Yes folks, there is a thought process that goes into these things!

Instead of posting these elsewhere, updates regarding Siege will now be posted here. A quick recap on what Siege is. Siege is a map I created during Gamma development period of APB. Unfortunately due to several reasons, of which performance was the main reason, it never saw a public release. I will be reviving it now for Delta, and this does mean redoing large parts of the level. Here is what I posted about it in a recent thread: As a reminder, the reason I am working on Siege instead of the Fjord remake, is that the Fjord remake is an even bigger project that I need more time for, and I do not want to let down player expectations for it... Siege is my mid term solution so that I can still deliver a new piece of content within a more reasonable time frame. So, as a first teaser update, I've created this short video, showing the functionality of the medieval cannons. NOTE THAT THIS MAP IS IN EARLY DEVELOPMENT AND VERY MUCH A WORK IN PROGRESS! * Impact sound is missing from the video due to it not exporting in the mix file, I didn't notice until I uploaded the video. Expect more updates as development continues!

Cannons are manned by players, and if destroyed they leave repairable debris to make it operational again. They can destroy the entire base if you let them. Mobile AA is a project not in my hands right now but it might be done in time for Siege. (I actually created the unit for Gamma but the original rigging and presets were lost and needed to be redone.) It's not really something I've discussed at any serious level. Lack of file access is a problem on a regular basis I do admit. Anyhow, poll is up in the other thread regarding the alternative objective. Let me know what you guys think about it in that thread.

Greetings, As some of you know, my current contribution task for APB is the completion of the Gamma map, Siege. More information on this map can be found in the map request thread, as well as an explanation as for why I decided to work on Siege first, instead of the Fjord remake. Siege will have an alternate victory objective, alongside the standard base destruction victory. However I've been discussing this second victory condition with GeneralCamo, and we believe that another poll might settle the matter - after all, I create this content for you, the players, and you can decide for yourselves what is fun and what is not. A quick rundown of the two options. These are the only two options, there is no third option (other than perhaps no alternative objective at all). Note that this is about an alternative victory objective, this is not a bonus objective or secondary objective, which typically do not result in a match to end. Completion of Siege's alternative objective will end the game. Option 1: Domination mode as we currently have it on maps like Rocktrap. With this option, the castle will receive a set of key locations which must be controlled. Holding a domination objective generates score ticks, and when enough ticks are collected, the game ends in victory of the team with most domination ticks. This means that players have to constantly defend those locations. Option 2: A new gameplay mode we are currently calling "King of multiple hills". The objective would be to claim ownership of ALL control points in key locations within the castle, with a capture mechanic similar to that of domination mode. The key difference here is that capturing an objective doesn't do anything on it's own besides provide a notification. Only once all objectives are held by the same team will the game enter an "alert mode" where the other team has one minute to re-claim at least one control point to end the "alert mode". The team that manages to retain ownership of all locations during the "alert mode", wins the match. The main difference between option 1 and 2 is that domination mode encourages camping the same control points where as the new gameplay mode encourages you to travel to the other control points to clean them of enemies and flip ownership, since camping a single control point doesn't progress you towards a victory at all. Both gameplay modes will benefit from vehicle and air support (besides interior control points). Worth noting is that currently both alternative objectives require some script development, option 2 more so than option 1. So that's why this poll exists, to check which option is most preferred by the players, based on what they think is more fun. My personal opinion is leaning heavily towards option 2, since I do not like domination mode as it encourages just camping the same control point the entire match. Let us know what you think!

Each update contained a lot of map fixes. Some patches had a change log mostly filled with map fixes worth a few pages in length. A waste of time that was in the end, given that with Delta most Beta/Gamma maps have been remade or axed.

I worked with BHP around 2008-2012 before departing from the team due to internal issues within BHP, which ultimately concluded in a disagreement regarding a few things that could not be resolved. Most of my time on the team was assigned to fixing bugs, not new content creation, at least little that saw public release (Siege wasn't the only project to never be released, as BHP project leader Chronojam set me up to create a bunch of conceptional levels for game modes that never became reality). Edit: I think 2011 is a safer end date considering that I recall my last year on the team to be rather 'rough' due to said internal issues. I do not have the time to return to "full time" development contributor. Worth keeping in mind is that unlike most of the talent at W3D Hub, I am not someone who works on these things IRL, and neither do I study for these things. It's pretty much just something I pick up during downtimes in my RL schedule and other priorities.

I know I said I'd provide a preview of Siege this weekend, unfortunately there is a technical issue with my version of the development tools which means this will have to be postponed until next week, when hopefully this will be resolved (essentially my tools are out of date and I need the latest ones, but this is problematic at the present). For now, I'll provide a Max shot of the current raw layout of the level. Note that for image clarity, I have hidden the foliage (trees, grass, etc.). If you inspect the base layouts you will notice vulnerabilities. The land routes are well defended from ground attacks but offer no anti-air support. The air power resupply regions of both bases on the other hand, have anti-air support defenses but no protection from ground based attacks. Finally, the rear of each base has practically no defenses altogether. This setup will encourage defenders to "fill the gap" of their defenses themselves, as well as provide clear attack opportunities for the enemy team. The bases are very spread out, this is primarily to minimize the damage a single A-Bomb flare can do. I was comfortable enough keeping the base buildings this spread, since Delta added infantry sprinting. Do note that I've only started working on reviving this map this weekend, and you can expect significant changes still (especially in and around the castle, to support the secondary objective). Three more bits; - The Allies will have access to the Chinook. - Neutral castle cannons on the castle walls will be able to deal significant damage to base buildings. Once destroyed, these cannons leave behind indestructible debris that can be repaired, to restore the cannon. - The Mobile A. A. Gun might make a return in time for Siege to be released. These will be found in limited supply around the castle, they will not respawn, but they can be powerful defensive perks for your team, should you escort them back to your base in safety.