Raap

So none of these things count? Getting rid of the prized Gamma "feature" of causing headaches and being a Player Quit Factor Making the jamming SILENT to the other team instead so they don't immediately notice unless they happen to be looking at their radar at the time of jamming Removing it from all the maps that don't have a dome, so newbies don't buy it expecting it to do something in places where it doesn't do anything Making it deployable so you can be a useful field rocket/sniper/mech/tanya and jam at the same time Doubling its hitpoints and raising it to light tank speed It could be better, yes, but seriously? A points trickle? That doesn't make it more useful because points don't actually do anything useful, it just means that matches that don't end in base destruction are a little more likely to result in +1 to the stat total for Allied victories, making it harder to take map stats seriously because we have to consider the possibility that Allies are winning close games on map X because they're abusing Mobile Points Generators as well as the possibility that Allies' defenses/terrain/OP unit makes it easier for them to get points through combat/deny points from the enemy than it is for the Soviets, and whatever thing is responsible needs a little nerf (or something opposite needs a buff). It doesn't even make base destruction easier like removing radar and diverting enemies to bring it down does. You can give it a credit bonus or something at least, for successful deployment within radar range. I'm just stating a fact and proposing a possible solution, frankly, don't shoot the messenger, but rather review the vehicle usage statistics. The MRJ is the least used unit in APB, you can decide to leave it like that, or explore options that boost it's usage rate. It is up to you. There's already a limit of 2 MGGs at a time anyway. Because a certain other mod whose name is apparently taboo to mention in comparison to APB has already shown what happens when you let a ton of units with big animated domes run rampant. Those screenshots display the same issue APB currently has on average every 8-10 matches. I tried getting a screenshot of it myself but I didn't have time to play enough matches to reproduce it.

APB always had solid multiplayer gameplay (Gamma didn't happen), you missed out on a lot of fun for those 8 years, friend! Always good to see old faces return, though. The more the better, since at this point it is a low playerbase that is holding back the game more than anything else.

The audience for paid-review websites like IGN has diminished greatly over the years due to the common knowledge that such websites give "reviews" based on what the developer pays them. And W3D Hub can't and won't pay them, therefore they won't "review" W3D games. Frankly, be happy about that, since the main thing they'd hammer on about is the dated graphics, or the lack of lottery box skins...

I had the chance to play HW a few rounds over the past few days and I can't help but notice that, to win HW, your team needs to communicate and coordinate significantly more than on other maps, and that HW is very punishing to lone-wolf gameplay due to all units having hard-counters (you cannot destroy an enemy building as a lone Destroyer/Missile Sub, you need to bring support units to counter other units). It really does play very differently from other APB maps - and working as intended, in that regard. I am quite satisfied with the gameplay result as well, thanks to Pushwall's continued naval balance passes. He showed quite the ingenuity with the AI depth charges, as it leveled the playing field and skill ceiling for both team's main naval support units. I honestly wouldn't have thought of that, so props to him. It's probably for the best, Silverlight, that you didn't make a screenshot of you dumping my Tanya into an ore mine hole at Ridge War the other day. You clearly had that totally planned out, the way you told me to follow you, and jump out of the still-moving Ranger as you jumped out, leaving my door exit on top of a hole. Tanya might be a good fighter, but she certainly cannot fly (perhaps we should file a bug report on this Tanya-cannot-fly matter). The Allied commanders would probably have your driving licence revoked...

I deployed a Mobile Radar Jammer the other day. I got it to what I thought was within enemy radar range (game needs to give clear feedback about this, honestly), deployed, and left it there for quite a while. Besides not knowing if it actually worked properly, I didn't get any additional rewards, despite deploying an MRJ within the range of a Soviet Radar Dome being arguably one of the most tricky support things a player can do in APB. So tricky, I don't actually know of anyone ever doing it against my team while playing as Soviets. I think that, if an MRJ successfully deploys within range of a Soviet Radar Dome, it should start tickling in points for the player who deployed it, until it is destroyed. This will likely mean that the radar jamming script needs to be updated to include a score/credits ticking effect, though. The MRJ is the least used unit in all of APB. I think it could use some love.

This is correct. So APB and the W3D Hub infrastructure needs to solve a few things most of us refer to as "player quit points". Anyhow, I more than said my share on this subject. Ultimately it's up to W3D Hub staff to decide their own marketing agenda.

Which is what my point was. The game and W3D infrastructure could do with various improvements first, to solve the empty server issue. Then, and only then, can you start approaching streamers.

Be mindful that when importing assets from other games, you run the risk of legal issues. And also, keep in mind while I do not speak for W3D Hub staff, I can say with some level of certainty that W3D Hub will not host for example an APB map on the live server that features content ripped from other games. Custom-made content created specifically for a W3D project is encouraged. Said content can be inspired by the theme that the game is based on, or not, but remember the existence of logical boundaries, and don't add pink bunny death troopers with lazer eyes to a Reborn map. My Hostile Waters already pushes a few limits in that regard, by featuring mechanics and buildings not native to Red Alert or A Path Beyond gameplay. I do like to think however, that I pulled it off somewhat consistently and fitting the overal gameplay and themes, while staying true to the somewhat less serious artistic direction (see icebergs). Yes, some thought actually has to go into these things. Crazy, right?! When the APB SDK finally releases, I personally really look forward to seeing what creative minds can conjure up. Just remember that developing content for W3D isn't a one-click-miracle, and you will need to use a large list of different development tools and have some expertise in each of them, to create what you envision. The "biggest hurdle" by far would be having a high proficiency at using 3DS Studio Max, which handles the bulk of your content development alongside the Level Editor.

It looks different from those screenshots although judging by the missing wheels, it might be similar. If I see it again I'll be sure to press print screen. As I said, it's quite common.

Can't comment on grenadier gameplay, besides stating that the grenade targeting info is very annoying and makes me lose track of my target at times since the grenade info box pops up the moment you throw one. They should really be non-targetable

Speaking of vehicle related issues potentially caused by scripts, any clue on what causes the vehicle rendering issue where a part of a vehicle in the game world will randomly appear stretched and spinning across the screen? You can see this issue from maximum rendering distance and it will completely block your vision in the direction of the affected vehicle, until you reboot the client. This is a Delta issue, so something related to vehicle rendering is busted. It seems to occur on average once every 8-10 matches.

See, damage ignoring armor opens too many doors in balance land. A flat damage reduction or increase works better. Edit: Pyryle that avatar is hilarious.

I'll be honest and say that although I am aware regional damage exists, I can hardly notice it. Perhaps it needs a consistency pass; - Remove odd shapes and make any damage region of a vehicle register as that specific damage bonus/decrease, the reality of Internet delays will be less punishing on players this way, and the mechanic will become more obvious in general. - Make damage regions consistent across the board for three vehicle types; Tanks Front: 20% damage reduction. Top: 10% damage reduction. Sides: 0% damage reduction. Bottom: 30% damage increase. Rear: 30% damage increase. Light Vehicles Front: 10% damage reduction. Top: 0% damage reduction. Sides: 0% damage reduction. Bottom: 20% damage increase. Rear: 20% damage increase. Support/Naval No special damage regions due to general assumed vulnerability from any side. If you flank a tank, you should be more clearly rewarded. Similarly, any vehicle driver exposing a vulnerable side in combat should be punished for doing so. The end result will be similar to ignoring armor, but less confusing to new players. Edit: On a related note, if Light Tanks had a turret rotation speed increase, they could be used to do some proper damage against slow turning vehicles like Heavy Tanks.

Heh, I remember touching up some version of River Raid ages ago and adding a playable area near the ocean, but that version never got finished. It's interesting how Pushwall consistently has the same ideas that I had for certain maps.

Unless memory is failing me here, Renegade mines started deleting the oldest placed mine once a new one was placed after a certain limit. This might do the trick here, especially if it could be paired with a message notifying the mine placer that the limit was reached and old mines are being removed, since that is the main concern here.

Because it told you to stop, drop everything you were doing, and pay attention to it. And you, being the good citizen you are, did exactly what the sign asked from you. Working as intended.

I think there is still some ground to gain on the home turf. Quite a few C&C project websites have a (small) following, and aren't likely even aware of W3D Hub. Some might have no interest in covering the games since they are a departure from RTS gameplay, others have a conflict of interest in general. Streamers, although a good idea, is difficult to pull off without a 24/7 active server(s). And one or two streamers streaming a few matches isn't going to make a difference in population. The game needs a more steady player base before attempting to go big with streamers. To do that, you first need to solve the problems that causes empty servers in the first place, and that is not purely a PR matter, it is also very much a game design matter (and not always something unique to APB). The main factors in killing packed servers and preventing players from joining: Populated servers see a consistent player drop whenever an infantry map is next in rotation. Solution: Remove infantry maps and re-implemented them at a later date with bases and vehicles. Players refuse to join empty servers and are unable to really organize themselves to get a game going. Solution 1A: Get the chat lobby working. Solution 1B: Implement functional gameplay for player populations 1 to 6. Players leave the game in stalemate situations where they got nothing left to do due to factory destruction. Solution: End the game two minutes after a team loses all production buildings (helipads excluded due to support nature). Players can get bored on some maps during the pre-ore dump waiting period. Solution: On said maps, add objectives or varied attack options that are viable to execute at match startup. Edit: I don't mean to judge, but I wonder what W3D Hub project priorities are sometimes. The programming team should really consider prioritizing the development of systems that benefit all W3D projects, such as mechanics that help resolve issues like the inability to have map content dynamically scale based on player population in a match. The programming team knows W3D like an open book, surely they could find a way to tackle this issue and develop a set of scripts that can do things based on the population scale. Example script 1: Count players on match start, enable X out of Y pre-set single-spawn vehicle spawns to get the fight going right away without waiting for an ore dump. Re-count every 30 seconds, keep unlocking/spawning X out of Y vehicle spawns as more players join until Y has ran out of the maximum number of pre-set spawners. To prevent stuck issues as vehicles spawn out of thin air, the vehicles should probably arrive via cinematic reinforcements, so a new player joins -> reinforcement vehicle arrives -> new player can get into the action right away (this stops occurring after Y vehicles have spawned). Example script 2: Count players on match start, enable X out of Y AI support units designed to fight other units in the battle regions of the map (not bases). Re-count every 30 seconds, reducing the number of active AI units as more players join by disabling their re-spawn locations (and re-enabling them should players leave). The number of active AI units can be 0 but not greater than Y. The AI could originate from "reinforcement zones" that don't have to be in the same location as team bases. Etc.

Chronojam is that you? Hostile Waters reached about the limit of sensible water gameplay scale limitations. And a level played ON a ship makes little sense, how would the Soviets have boarded one? They aren't the secret 3rd Somalian Pirates faction, they are the Soviets.

Oi, relax mate. You know what you should do? Add cruisers!

You'd still need some form of pathfind generation similar to how I described it. But yeah, it's good to talk about ideas, so you can learn if it is worth pushing forward or not.

I think the TLDR version of this can be seen as: W3D AI capacity is very limited, and to even get basic things working, major development time-intensive workarounds would need to be created (see my firing line theory). Weigh the pros and cons against the development time required and you will probably have to conclude it to be... Not worthwhile.

So in the end you need pathfinding everywhere anyway. Unless the only AI units that exist are ones that don't shoot (OTs) or only have the ability to shoot as a joke and aren't expected to actually be shooting every enemy that a normal player would notice (OT technicians). If this is an unsolvable issue from a programming perspective, then you got one more option of an additional extension to the "AI world", a non-connected pathfind region to act as a "AI firing line", to extend a reasonable distance away from the "AI world" region, let's say 50 meters since that's around the range the standard rifles have. Since this "AI firing line" region isn't connected to where the AI can exist, they won't try moving towards it, but should in theory still identify targets within that second pathfind region. Targets even further away than this "AI firing line" region (so 50+ meters) likely shouldn't be shot at anyway since we can assume that such player units are "hidden".

On that subject, you could shape an "AI world" within a level by having an AI-only collision (since special collision groups can now be made) and script zone mesh to funnel AI into specific parts of a map, say for example, only bases and on roads between said bases. The script zone part of this mesh would be a flare-or-no-flare script, so any spawned AI would always land within the "AI world" area. This should theoretically, allow for an AI that can navigate to key objectives, while ignoring vast map backdrop areas, and not requiring map-wide pathfind generation. Alternatively the collision part of this could be handled like water used to be handled pre-light solve fix; Place it during pathfind generation, remove it afterwards. The flare-or-no-flare script zone should be a little smaller to fit within the "AI world" region of the map, so that the AI isn't likely to spawn just outside the edge of where they should be, although this particular issue completely depends on how the AI is spawned via cinematic effects. Edit: That said, I don't think you want the AI to attack an enemy base on it's own. Any AI units that could be spawned should probably more serve a guard duty role, so a team can use them to build up security in their own base, or spawn some on a map objective, or inside the enemy base as a distraction (they should probably be set to ignore AI Ore Trucks otherwise they will basically do nothing useful). Good example; You captured an Oil Derrick on Pipeline, you spawn a flare calling in ~2 AI bots to then protect it from lone enemy Engineers.

Delta (3.0.0) is not considered a beta version. Neither was Gamma (2.0.0), but let's pretend that it was. More mission objective-based maps like Seamist and to some extent, Hostile Waters, is entirely up to level designers. It certainly is possible to have multiplayer matches with more objective orientated gameplay as you can already see in those two maps. Single player mission, however, I don't think will ever happen, since there were never any real plans for those to begin with. APB's core gameplay is multiplayer, any development effort should go towards improving that core gameplay, rather than adding very development-intensive content only a hand full of people enjoy. Fun fact: Creating single-player content is significantly more time consuming than creating multiplayer content, due to matching player expectations for the content. Plus, I don't think W3D Hub has any single player content development experts, since nearly everyone is focused on multiplayer gameplay, the thing W3D can actually do well.

The image is indeed still loaded. Edit: Unless recent IPB updates changed it. I'm not able to test it, and testing it via checking the spoilers doesn't matter since my Interwebs is too fast.