Raptor29aa

I like the changes, not sure about the medic but I don’t use medics anyways, still I have two concerns. a) on guard duty without hill coverage how will artillery defend again V2 bombardment? (Not to mention Refinery AA gun sniping). B) and this one is important! If there are no silos or refineries on Pipeline then how am I supposed to early game LT thief the Soviets and send most of the opposing team into an angry screeching fit? (Edit: Or maybe I should just ask that thief’s get removed from the map).

You mean having a repair hut with a repair terminal that uses 100% a golden wrench/ 58 seconds techie? sounds more RA 2 than RA 1 but I could go for it. I do agree with Raap on route being key, but my main point is was not having the bridge within artillery distance of any base.

Complex, Guard duty, And Costal influence both led to V2 or artillery bombardment. (Although I do miss how once the bridge was gone I could sail a destroyer into the bay.) Guard duty’s Yaks was a definite hedge against siege/bombardment. Sadly costal influence’s Naval is not a good counter to artillery. If a destructible bridge did not lead to artillery bombardment I would be all for it.

I think the problem for the War Factory (which was the most mentioned) and roof top camping of kov on the CY have been solved. The main issue was the spy/kov/flamethrower/single-slug headshot while ladder climbing since the height gave time to the attacker to line up a good shot. I agree with the opinion that we should wait on creating a no flare zone on the roof tops. For two reasons. A). A roof top flare doesn’t allow an attacker a vehicle. Or team of vehicles. B) the new access should allow the defender a faster route to a purchase terminal. Lastly, it does open up the concern about tanya/spy teams. Yet I’ve seen how tanya/ spy teams cause the allied team two less players and sometimes half their defenses.

Wait actually pilotable Kirovs? That is quite the accomplishment considering how they are spawned, where to get in, how to balance something that massive, and how does it not create lag? its like introducing a flying house

I often tell newbies to look up the wiki.

Treetop jungle made me like I was in Star Wars on Kashyyyk and I was thinking where’s the Wookiees. Treetop jungle would’ve been away better if it had more rampart/bridges. Sorry for the nonsequitor nostalgia

Apperantly, the most complaints are about the refinery. I have a solution... one more ladder? I think the discussion is two parted. A) accessibly... as in do you have to walk around the building to get to a ladder? how many ladders are there? B) offensive potential... can the attacker be hit from the ground? Is there cover on the roof? Can the attacker move to the ladders faster than you can? Is the terrain flat or slanted? For example power plant on zama: four ladders. Attacker can be hit from the ground by either flame or phase tank (no complaints here).

After watching the video, I am excited! It turns out the trees aren't as big of an issue as I previously thought. I still don't like trees and yaks, but I think the map has an open enough sky. Lastly I've never tried longbow vs Yak.

After seeing some screen shots I am impressed... finally some much needed cover on icebergs! (never thought those two concepts would be combined; I mean who builds military installations on a melt-able platform? Unless those are made to look like Ice bergs and are actually a floating platform, like an oil rig. And if that was the case then yes I could see the desire to claim it.) As far as unique tech goes it would be hilarious to see a single shot V2 sub or a single shot artillery boat at a ridiculous cost. (because a double barrel V2 sub "dreadnaught" would be over kill just like a double barrel artillery "cruiser" would be). But hey an AA truck exists, why not a long range naval craft? (@Raap I know you are short on time so I won't push it; since adding a stationary V2 launch platform to the top of a sub/Msub or a stationary artillery arm to a destroyer/Gunboat would take way too long to design.) Also a Gem Silo... that is very future tech/ Enstein of you. (it fits well as a easter egg and could fit RA universe) Lastly, Good choice of using a larger money pool, because water combat is expensive and I would often get upset that my boat or sub took a while to save up for and died too quickly (especially with longbows or hinds buzzing like flies around the middle and no way to assault the flat open ice bergs to reclaim the SAMs since there was only one landing point). The changes are much appreciated, especially since now it won't break the bank to sub/boat assault.

Killing totd counts as 5 and should reward 10x the points, lol... that video was awesome

Ok I think I will clarify. If there was a clone vat building. It would have a purchase terminal to create a clone of your character for example named “Raptor29a Clone” and there would have to be a script to limit one clone per character. I think that would be the only reasonable why it could be implemented. Strangely enough I am going in depth on my sarcasm to the point of plausibility. PS I look forward to whatever you guys come up with. I know this game will be a completely different animal and feel than APB. So I will temporarily suspend my judgement but continue my enthusiasm.

...it was a joke... notice the wink at the end? . I know a factory with purchasable AI bots would be overpowered and ridiculous. Although I do admit a building that provides free vehicles, and free money does sound a bit silly. I could see it as a neutral capturable building. But I suppose somethingthat functions like apb’s radar dome would be better than free.

They don't need a Reinforcement Bay. All they need are cloning vats ;-)

It’s a tiberium life form... mystery solved.

I do have an idea to fix all this. How about up the minimum player court to 4v4 (aka 8 players) before stats record. Meaning bot kills won’t matter anyways. Here is my thought process: 1 player with 14 bots on both sides. For each player that joins 2 bots are removed. By the time it is 3v3 the bot count would be 4 per side. (Almost 50/50 human to bot) And the infamous 3v4 game would still have 2 bots to help (probably repair techies or shotgun infantry). bear in mind it can be adjusted like ending at 3v3 and having it start off at 10 bots. And start the recording at 3v3. And by the time it’s 3v2 each side only has 2 bots. I just felt 4v4 would be optimal.

@Raap are you saying that once captured a turret comes online for that side? Or are Oh saying that a controllable stationary turret comes online. I do see the advantage to the first option more than the second option. A player controlled turret (unless up high) would simply take a man out of the field. The first option an AI turret would add a tactical advantage of shutting down an attack route to an opponent. Yet the turret would not impede the ability for a techie to capture the building.

I can’t speak for everyone but I feel APB doesn’t need a new release. I am satisfied with the gameplay as is. Maybe a new level or four would jazz up the crowds. (you could give it a name like atomic winter or cold fission or APB leveled up) Also to be honest I can feel tired of gameplay after a while. If EA does intend to revamp command and conquer... why not give them APB plus another CnC project? Then when some feel tired of one they can switch to another. Give both games a ranking system like APB stats and BAM! ? You will not have only brought in new players but also a younger audience and new enthusiasm. You could call it W3D - The Pwnage Begins

Something to remember: a projectile being fired from high altitude doesn’t need a lot of propellant or ordinance to do considerable damage to a ground target.

Before my old computer kicked the bucket, I tried to go back from level edit to edit the map I was working on. (To get it into level edit I had to split the ground into six pieces.) So going back to edit was a pain. I’m not skilled with texturing so I can image the difficulty of going back. Something about playing ping pong between two programs sounds tedious. Also developer scripts stuff sounds tedious also. If I try my hand at making a map again I will back up my work and I will keep it simple. Maybe something more infantry only. Like a hill top/Mesa tip match. (Or a box canyon normal match).

If it were low tech and no helicopters, maybe soviets could still get Yaks? (Although the moment I mention yak I know someone is going to remind me that the castle walls are too high for airplane flight... but I can still dream)

Good to see you Raap. Believe it or not I have been a fan of your unique map making abilities since.9935. Although you wish some of your earlier maps were buried deep under Chernobyl, I find them to be very imaginative. You weren’t satisfied with the same green boxed canyon design everyone else made. This how you will be remembered pushing both the game’s norms and limits. ps (thanks for retuning a few maps)

I find it interesting that tunneling is the answer to a Siege... in medieval times they would tunnel under walls to surprise an enemy and break a Siege. If a door were added it would need to be a red access only door. And I don’t think the allies need one (phase tanks and helicopters and apcs are adequate transports.) Although, Pro: would offer cool secret Volkov route to retake the castle. Con: would create spy tunnel (currently there are two ways in 1: suicide helicopter Or 2: walk in the front door)

Looks like those dogs are Hurrying down to their local Kremlin Fried Chicken

+2 just wanting to hear the sound "you got mail"