System Error Message

Not every map needs objectives, The typical skirmish gamemode of destroying enemy base does well. Objectives based maps for more variation so people dont get bored of the standard skirmish and the game offers much more. Co op is actually a big deal as it encourages people to bring their friends. Having some way to see the map tags would really help even in the game itself when making a server. Tags dont need to be many just a few simple things like Infantry only/vehicles, tech level, skirmish/mission, map size (an arbitary number you put there not based on skybox/geomatry size). This will help people who want to host and make their own game sessions and to make it easier for players to see what kind of map is the server currently hosting and if it is a playstyle they like. I used seamist as an example for objectives as how it could be changed to add more mission depth. I also liked the old music for that map better. Even though this is an FPS it really needs more red alert feel so if there are any campaigns you could replicate from there that would go well in multiplayer that would be good. You could replicate only part of a mission so skipping the build phase for example. I think defending base or something against waves of AI would be a fun co op mission (number of AI and difficulty should be dynamic to number of players if possible). You dont need many mission maps, even if a quarter of all the maps are missions that would be good enough, they just need to be varied. I get that consumer CPUs arent so multicore but from my coding experience multi threading even on a single core ARM CPU really helps a lot. So even a single core CPU will perform better with multiple threads as you could tweak it so one doesnt wait for the other. If you assume the compiler will be good to sort your threads well and you thread based on task being irrelevant it really pays of.

cool. Does it only take 1 to supercharge them or do you need more? If 3 players supercharged the tesla coil would it do more damage than 1 player charging it? Are you also saying that 1 player is enough to keep a tesla coil running when there is no power? I hope you give them big rubber shoes .

14 years old That is very old. The missions dont need that many objectives, not more than 3 or 4 objectives. For example capturing multiple points/buildings with 3 buildings to capture would count as 3 objectives or escorting a vehicle somewhere with someone driving it and then defending it from AI would already count as 3 but there should be more than just 1 stage. If you take seamist you can give it 2 objectives by giving the player a cruiser and having the player destroy the enemy base with it (balance doesnt count as it is objectives so theres still a chance the soviets can win if they manage to destroy allied base but allies now have a lot more advantage), Having more than 1 objective would make it nice but you can also give both the allies and soviets different objectives so stopping the other from achieving their objective while achieving your objective can also be a game. There should still be some maps with 1 objective though as it goes better with less players. so if the game had 127 players would the game be CPU bound? You mentioned the netcode not handling it well so i imagine it needs more CPU to keep track of everything. I never really see FPS games have more than 64 players not even valve games. I still think 64 players would be sufficient for big maps since even in RA and RA2 there is actually no limit to units but the game is made small by resource. Since you are using an old game engine are you able to tweak it for multi threading or are you stuck with just 1 core? Its not too much of a problem because CPUs now can really clock up with just 1 active core. If you could also divide the maps into 3 categories that would be great because when i first played RA APB i would go through and look for maps that had vehicles so you should divide the maps into infantry only, vehicles and missions within the game if it is possible. Or when a map is clicked you could have the tags displayed such as whether it is infantry only, vehicles, missions and even tech level. Since the game is free and has low system requirements it shouldnt be too difficult to get people to install the game and try it out.

Its not about removing the power plant, its more that the regular power plant isnt too difficult to destroy. The advanced power plant should have more health than the normal power plant which is the reason for having it.

I think removing the advanced power plant is a bad idea. The reason for having the advanced power plant isnt just to indicate the need for more power but also because the building should have more health than the standard power plant since you would have more buildings relying on it for power. So for maps with more power hungry buildings that should have the advanced power plant, because it should be a tougher building. It would make things weird if you just increased the normal power plant health for those maps, would make the game feel too inconsistent.

When you finally find some streamers, try to get a full server session. Since this is an RTS to FPS convert if you can fit 32 players or even more that would be much better. Organising some sessions (streamers can also reach out to the community to get players to join them if they plan). The other important thing though about streamers is to watch for their review, take note of their positive and negative comments and if you improve upon the feedback they give especially before they release their video they will comment on that in their video so it helps (i.e. the issue has been patched). Im hoping there isnt a hard limit of how many players, vehicles and stuff you can have in the game. I imagine it uses the typical arrangement of player uploads to server and server sends data to everyone. So as long as server has enough upload it should work fine since the requirements increase exponentially for every additional player. Really big matches will attract players so its good for temporary sessions with the right maps but for 24/7 server it should be geared towards less players and with the maps to go with it. However some streamers will like to play the game with a small match instead. If you could at least scrounge up some campaign maps that could also work for events but there would need to be more depth such as more missions (rather than just destroying 1 building for example) such as capturing a point/building and holding it or defending against waves of AI (or player + AI) (basically things you can get from RA campaign that you can play cooperatively that dont involve building or story). Good for temporary sessions but bad for 24/7 server because in C&C its always destroy the enemy base in skirmish. Although i think if w3d ever do come up with a co op campaign just like renegade that would really be nice as you could either follow RA or write your own to compliment the existing RA storyline which is what renegade does. In its current state, when you mention RA APB you should mention that it is new, those media guys like to think they're getting the first bite at something even though you may be version 4. The "New" term if you have to explain would be that w3d acquired, changed and than re-released RA APB.

dont forget the tesla trooper with its corny rubber shoes and the ability to charge a tesla coil so it has more range and damage and can operate during a power down. Will 5 tesla troopers be needed or would you reduce the number down? But this is a shooter version of RA2, the more that is implemented and becomes like RA2 the better. Not only would it be graphically better and more detailed but im hoping some of the tactics used in RA2 would also be applicable in the shooter as well. Im pretty sure every player at some point would've liked to explore the game in 3D.

I like that the advanced power plant was implemented in maps with more buildings such as where more power would be needed in an equivalent RA RTS. I hope the same trend can continue for RA2 where the allies would need 2 power plants whereas the soviets with the nuclear power plant.

Well regardless if its allies, soviets, GDI or NOD, you cant help but notice many units being similar. GDI mammoth tank to soviet mammoth tank for example. In the C&C universe bullets will damage tanks so while irl shooting a machine gun at a tank is pointless in C&C enough infantry can take down the mammoth tank with machine guns. So if we programmatically took the mammoth tank from GDI vs the soviet mammoth tank pretty sure it would end up with both killing each other at the same time or the one that fires first winning. While some iconic units in the game get implemented many units used quite a lot in ww2 wasnt implemented for example the anti tank and artillery gun but some of the soviet units are well implemented such as the V2 rocket since russia had their own rocket artillery barrage. Some infantry weapons like mortars also werent used (although there were some who used mortars from a truck in ww2)

If a spy goes into the power plant does it mean temporary power down or is it not implemented?

thanks Nice to know a lot of things will be implemented. For building garrisons why not treat the building as an immobile vehicle that anyone can enter? Except for Yuri's infantry units it seems that the building shoots some sort of heavy machine gun in RA2. Seeing as the building is static and fits some people (depending on size and type in RA2) so it should have something like the missile sub in RA APB which basically has an immobile turret. The main thing is that the building has 360 degree fire but the fire effect comes from the building itself rather than a specific turret. The more infantry you garrison in the building the more damage it does so im not sure how you will implement this whether 10 troops in 1 building can all fire seperately or 1 person shooting and the more infantry the stronger the attack. Since buildings being buildings shouldnt be repaired by construction yard or repair vehicle, an engineer should be able to repair a building. I forgot to ask how will the prism system work? Will there be multiple prism towers helping each other and will the prism tank's dispersion be random or specific (such as unit homing or in some specific shape and direction). I hope you will implement units from Yuri's revenge as well such as the large allied tank that can run over other tanks, heavy infantry, siege choppers, the flying saucer and yuri's stuff. would be interesting to break away from the standard 1 v 1 team to a 3 faction free for all. Yuri's magnet tank would be so much easier to use in FPS since you could control where you want to move vehicles (so it can be used on both allies to get tanks over obstacles and enemies). For paratroopers, how about having AI paratroopers that just hang around the area/garrison the nearest building? Might be easy to implement if using binoculars to call them in. It would be nice if the plane that delivered the paratroopers could also be shot down like in RA2. As for neutral buildings it would be nice to see them implemented. I do remember some RA2 missions that had a radar station you could garrison with lots of troops though, not sure if it was also functional. Since the allies have no advanced power plant in some maps they could have 2 or 3 if the soviets get the nuclear power plant. Would be interesting if the nuclear power plant spread radiation and damage when destroyed.

a lobby system could help a lot. I could even set up 24/7 active server because i am on a good connection and have unused resources, although linux would be preferred. from US to me is around 100ms and im in the UK. Although i think w3d hub already has a 24/7 server. but you only need 1 24/7 active server to get the players started. For the streamers you organise an event to get them all on at the same time to play against each other.

looks more like klingon battlecruiser. Didnt the battlecruiser from starcraft fire 2 slow firing lasers? i know in the cinematic it had fast firing turrets.

call it early access . Oh well if you think APB is finished more than TSR than push it.

I think you should pitch TSR first before APB.

im not too well versed either but there are 2 kinds of streamers, one that streams specific games and one that stream various games as their main business. It doesnt matter if the game is their playstyle or not essentially these streamers are sponsored in some way either by the game (giving them closed beta/early access or game copy or free swag) and they have to stream various games as its how they get their views. Some streamers do have stream groups which connects various streamers and their own website and media pages. Stream groups and streamers who do various games and is their main business would definitely be the ones to approach first. Indie game reviewers are also a good option. Once they've done their review you than need regular streams of the game matches. Despite the fact that the game has spectating feature, streaming ends up being more viewed than server spectating. When you open up twitch and youtube for streaming there will always be sponsored and recommended that you should search through, and there should be some stats somewhere so it can help you narrow your search.

I would like the idea of those power hungry buildings shutting down with damage power plant. W3d hub is working on red alert 2, only a matter of time till they get to the recent C&Cs. Its not the fact that its a classic game, rather its more of bringing a newer approach so you can consider the game new even if it is based off something old. Take star wars and star trek for example, they are old but they have many reincarnations many different games that are even new. Is there a difference in health between normal power plant and advanced power plant?

Try the famous ones, there are various who play various games. As long as they have a few hundred active viewers and do reviews/plays of various games try to see if they are willing to give a few w3d hub games a try. Giving them closed beta access is an encouragement as well. The most common platforms used are twitch and youtube but if there are better ones than you could try that. Some of the famous/popular streamers may only have a few active viewers but thousands of viewers of their recorded videos. Lets play videos are also one you could try as well.

As long as melee works. Didnt renegade campaign have melee?

Streamers, you should try approaching streamers as there are various on twitch and youtube. Get them to review and try your game and give them some shirts too. If more people know about the game than it is very likely the players who would be interested in the game would play it. Approach the popular streamers or those that do indie games and such to give it a try. Even better if you can get multiple streamers playing against each other. to be honest i didnt even know you had facebook, twitter and your own youtube pages.

Well whenever i mention this to other people who play free games none of them know about renegade or w3d hub stuff. Its more like the game just isnt reaching the right audience.

1 reason why the lack of players is because this is a free game there is a lack of budget for advertisement and it needs to compete with other free games too. If for example this game appeared on steam it would get a lot more players especially with steam server browser integration. As long as w3d hub games can distinguish themselves from existing genre like cs and battlefield than players will start coming in. I think the requirements shouldnt be restricted to renegade system requirements. GPUs now are way faster and with way less restrictions than the GPUs that renegade was designed for (in which GPUs had a hardware pipeline instead of general purpose shaders as we have now). Essentially this is the source of my rant about RA APB, it is not well distinguished from battlefield.

Well i think the shadows should be fine but why not make the building interiors darker by default so when the lights go out everything gets darker or the lighting changes seem more significant. This isnt for a major gameplay change, this is just to add some minor things to the gameplay to make it better. If the script doesnt work try different values or some debugging.

battlefront beat you to it in making the whole FPS thing. Star wars is more a 3rd person or FPS game rather than RTS (so its more of an RTS made from FPS) Instead of focusing on futuristic RTS why not medievel stuff? There are plenty of medievel RTS games (that werent the greedy web based static ones)

Will paratroopers be implemented? Will the grand cannon be implemented? Can paratroopers be dropped on buildings to immediately garrison them?