Discuss Hostile Waters gameplay feedback and bug report thread

[Einstein]

Hey guys! For those of you who have been living under a rock not noticed, our friend Raap has been trying his best to finish up a new rendition of a map he made way back in the APB .9935 days - Hostile Waters. While many of the staff and testing team have had a great time thus far playtesting the map, nothing compares to the feedback that can be gained from a public test. Therefore, it has been temporarily added to the regular rotation! If you haven't played it yet, jump on the official server and have at it! When you're done, come back here and share your thoughts. The map is nearing completion and Raap says he's in the final stages of cleaning and prettying it up. If you see something that is really bad out of whack or if you find a bug, tell us about it here. Otherwise, if you have some positive comments, those are more than welcome too. Our developers and in this case, fan mappers, need all the encouragement they can get! Thanks!

[Nodlied]

Before I start, don't take my post as a negative one. Anything left unmentioned can be considered ok/good enough/great. (Pick whatever you want. )

 

 

Potential issues:

• Capturing the tech structures is far too easy. Not because they're easy to reach, but because they can all be captured by one engineer. This will result in less of a fight on the icebergs and more of a tug-o-war without casualties between engineers.
• Subs have a far too easy time setting up ambushes or hiding from any dangers due to the icebergs. Due to their ability to pivot and strafe, combined with the excelent turn rate, they don't really have any problems taking down gunboats around the icebergs. Even though the boats are more manoeuvrable than before, they still don't have an easy time turning between the icebergs to bring their gun to bear. Of course, one can brake and reverse but it either takes too much time or the sub will retreat below the icebergs.

 

Suggestions:

• Adding another naval repair tech structure, this to not force subs and ships back to base after a fight if they want to stand another chance in a direct confrontation, especially on a map like this.

 

Food for thought for other people wishing to provide feedback:

• Lonbows destroying subs (with the exception of counterstriking missilesubs), is somewhat balanced out by their stealthyness. A sub can get from one point of the map to another while being completely hidden. Ships, however, cannot, and they can be seen from miles away and do not have the luxery to hide beneath icebergs. That's why Hinds are not effective against them.
• Some naval unit balancing may seem odd, this is not always the fault of the map (see my feedback above), but can have something to do with how subs and boats work at the moment, which we may be unable to fix until later, if at all.

 

[Raap]

Unit balance feedback is certainly welcome. I can't do anything about that myself, but I'm sure it'll be of interest to the APB Dev team (unless it is a map-specific issue, in which case it falls to me to solve it).

[delta]

Not a huge pressing issue or anything, but how about renaming the "Advanced Naval Yard" and "Advanced Sub Pen" to something like, "Shipyard" and "Submarine Base"? Sounds kinda silly to just tack "advanced" to the front of the name, imo.

[Ice]

The map is awesome! Although there is a slight visual issue with the Advanced Naval Yard; One of the stair-sets comes up through the upper floor slightly, resulting in a pair of 'spikes' at the top.

 

Also I'd recommend capitalizing the map's name to bring it in-line with the other maps (plus it just looks nicer on the list IMO); RA_HostileWaters instead of ra_hostilewaters

Edited February 14, 2016 by Ice

[Raap]

The map boundaries are not the outlying cliffs/icebergs provided. For some reason, there are instead orange water pylons/buoys closer inwards to the map, and they are cutting out half of the water space that should be available to boats.

This is working as intended. The far iceberg is a backdrop containing the (low detail) base that the capturable support structures used to be part of. The reason for the buoys is to highlight the maps playable edge, and is therefore consistent in design to other APB Delta maps that employ the same logic.

 

By having the map funnel players towards the icebergs, it ensures the action happens with consistent regularity and that players cannot so easily (or accidentally) avoid each other. The map is quite large so this is completely necessary.

 

Not a huge pressing issue or anything, but how about renaming the "Advanced Naval Yard" and "Advanced Sub Pen" to something like, "Shipyard" and "Submarine Base"? Sounds kinda silly to just tack "advanced" to the front of the name, imo.

I got good reasons for their names;

1- They are still the Naval Yard and Sub Pen that we know from Red Alert, however due to the maps unique gameplay, I had to go and re-design them (The Naval Yard is created 95% from scratch, the Sub Pen is about 70% new). I applied the word "Advanced" to be consistent with Red Alert universe logic; Buildings that do the same but are better, are "Advanced", such as the Advanced Power Plant. The Sub Pen in particular has a similar visual exterior differentiation to the Power Plant versions.

2- We have no EVA dialog for things such as "Shipyard", and having new EVA messages done is not possible (to my knowledge)... And it didn't seem to make much sense to me when considering what these buildings are (advanced naval buildings), and considering I had the right EVA dialog to work with to create mixes.

 

The map is awesome! Although there is a slight visual issue with the Advanced Naval Yard; One of the stair-sets comes up through the upper floor slightly, resulting in a pair of 'spikes' at the top.

 

Also I'd recommend capitalizing the map's name to bring it in-line with the other maps (plus it just looks nicer on the list IMO); RA_HostileWaters instead of ra_hostilewaters

The staircase pointy shit is actually intended, but I can see why it looks out of place. I'll resolve it either by adding a more clear railing, or flattening it... Likely the latter to make sure infantry don't feel too restricted in their movement.

 

The map name is a server issue, not something I can change.

 

Also, by all means keep posting unit balance feedback. While it is not my area to address unit balance, I could certainly change map elements to work around certain balance issues. For example I noticed that Soviet Shock Troopers got it too easy to lock down both sea and air on the icebergs, so I'm very likely going to remove them from the purchase list.

 

Remember that Hostile Waters is intended to play very differently from other maps, similar to how Domination mode is very different from standard base maps. My objective here is to NOT make this map play like other maps, however, the map must be FUN TO PLAY, and I seem to be getting mixed feedback on this so far (a big point of criticism has been that the capturable objectives are too easy to capture and far too valuable, so for the final version I will make the Refill Pad and Service Depot much more difficult to claim.

 

Thanks for the feedback so far!

Edited February 14, 2016 by Raap

[moonsense715]

Personal opinion: the sam site from the refill pad can shoot choppers repairing on the other tech building, the repair pad. I think that they should bit slightly further, right now as soon as you take off from there the other tech's sam starts shooting you immediately (given of course it's on the enemy team)

[GeneralCamo]

 

 

Also I'd recommend capitalizing the map's name to bring it in-line with the other maps (plus it just looks nicer on the list IMO); RA_HostileWaters instead of ra_hostilewaters

TTFS does not allow this. It is always lower-case. So this really isn't Raap's department.

 

[Raap]

Personal opinion: the sam site from the refill pad can shoot choppers repairing on the other tech building, the repair pad. I think that they should bit slightly further, right now as soon as you take off from there the other tech's sam starts shooting you immediately (given of course it's on the enemy team)

 

I looked at this in local testing, and I thought it to be an interesting dynamic, so I kept it. See, a helicopter repairing on the Service Depot while taking damage, can be hard to kill. So allowing the Refill Pad SAM site to attack helicopters that hover too high above ground, felt like a good potential way of destroying a camper.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Raap

[Raap]

I take the lack of forum overal feedback as a sign that most people are OK with the map?

 

In-game feedback doesn't indicate anything being extremely wrong, and most players tell me they enjoy the unique gameplay.

 

If there is anything else, speak up now or never!

Edited February 14, 2016 by Raap

[gammae102]

I only played one match on this map where there were around 22 players, so I'm not sure if my observations would hold up in a smaller map. But in the one match I played, it seemed like barely any damage was done to either the Advanced Naval Yard or Advanced Subpen. This made me wonder if the base defenses were truly necessary. It may very well be that they are in smaller games, and it's only because there were so many ships that no one could pull off a good attack.

 

On a similar note, do you think it would be possible to make it so Attack Subs could damage turrets? Gunboats and Destroyers can both attack Flame Towers, but the Attack Sub is completely defenseless in this regard. I'm not entirely sure what the range on subs and turrets are, but as long as subs don't grossly outrange turrets or anything, I think this would be a good change.

[Raap]

I only played one match on this map where there were around 22 players, so I'm not sure if my observations would hold up in a smaller map. But in the one match I played, it seemed like barely any damage was done to either the Advanced Naval Yard or Advanced Subpen. This made me wonder if the base defenses were truly necessary. It may very well be that they are in smaller games, and it's only because there were so many ships that no one could pull off a good attack.

 

On a similar note, do you think it would be possible to make it so Attack Subs could damage turrets? Gunboats and Destroyers can both attack Flame Towers, but the Attack Sub is completely defenseless in this regard. I'm not entirely sure what the range on subs and turrets are, but as long as subs don't grossly outrange turrets or anything, I think this would be a good change.

 

Gunboats take like two minutes to destroy a Flame Tower on their own, I wouldn't really count that. Remember that balance isn't symmetrical.

 

Nonetheless, the concern of too many defenses has been heard. The final version will have slightly reduced defenses for both bases.

[Ice]

There was one other minor visual issue I forgot to mention yesterday; I'd recommend lowering the Service Depots (in the bases) so the slope/edge is flush with the ground, just so it doesn't look like vehicles have to climb over a curb to get on there.

[Raap]

Server appears to have died while this was set as next map - invalid error, kick by anti cheat.

 

Edit:

 

There was one other minor visual issue I forgot to mention yesterday; I'd recommend lowering the Service Depots (in the bases) so the slope/edge is flush with the ground, just so it doesn't look like vehicles have to climb over a curb to get on there.

Intended, it is to help naval units target them from the water.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Raap

[Pushwall]

There was one other minor visual issue I forgot to mention yesterday; I'd recommend lowering the Service Depots (in the bases) so the slope/edge is flush with the ground, just so it doesn't look like vehicles have to climb over a curb to get on there.

 

Yeah, all those vehicles that both teams get access to. What a shame.

[Ice]

 

There was one other minor visual issue I forgot to mention yesterday; I'd recommend lowering the Service Depots (in the bases) so the slope/edge is flush with the ground, just so it doesn't look like vehicles have to climb over a curb to get on there.

 

Yeah, all those vehicles that both teams get access to. What a shame.

 

Lol true eh

[Einstein]

Server appears to have died while this was set as next map - invalid error, kick by anti cheat.

 

Triattack says its fixed now.

[OWA]

The service depots look like they need sinking into the floor a bit more as ICE said. but I haven't really found any other issues.

 

The moment that the first chime of Underhanded came on today, I felt the goosebumps of nostalgia hit me and all of the memories came flooding back. You've done us proud Raap.

[Einstein]

The service depots look like they need sinking into the floor a bit more as ICE said. but I haven't really found any other issues.

 

The moment that the first chime of Underhanded came on today, I felt the goosebumps of nostalgia hit me and all of the memories came flooding back. You've done us proud Raap.

Agreed. Also, why does that song have 2 names? Its also referred to as Underlying Thoughts....

[GeneralCamo]

It IS underlying thoughts. It never had any other name. I think he might be confusing it with Second Hand.

[Raap]

The service depots look like they need sinking into the floor a bit more as ICE said. but I haven't really found any other issues.

 

The moment that the first chime of Underhanded came on today, I felt the goosebumps of nostalgia hit me and all of the memories came flooding back. You've done us proud Raap.

 

It's unfortunate that the match you played ended within 3 minutes due to an infantry rush.

 

I'll be reducing the potential for those early rushes to have a chance at success for the final release.

[Pushwall]

Naval transports will also be a little flimsier in the next hotfix.

[Raap]

I'll be making changes to the base layouts in such a manner than simply charging the MCT room would be suicide. It will be possible, but you will need to deal with some defenses first which are best taken down via Destroyer/Missile Sub.

 

Being able to simply ignore base defenses will also be impossible with a health/armor nerf, which is something Naval Transports can currently do.

 

The sole purpose of defenses on the map is to prevent the game ending early, and that has clearly been a shortcoming in this version.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Raap

[ganein14]

 

The service depots look like they need sinking into the floor a bit more as ICE said. but I haven't really found any other issues.

 

The moment that the first chime of Underhanded came on today, I felt the goosebumps of nostalgia hit me and all of the memories came flooding back. You've done us proud Raap.

 

It's unfortunate that the match you played ended within 3 minutes due to an infantry rush.

 

I'll be reducing the potential for those early rushes to have a chance at success for the final release.

 

I was apart of that rush, and only got on when I was going to act protection for the engineer that we had to cap the icebergs...needless to say the driver got a major albeit unsaid WTF from me.

[Raap]

 

 

The service depots look like they need sinking into the floor a bit more as ICE said. but I haven't really found any other issues.

 

The moment that the first chime of Underhanded came on today, I felt the goosebumps of nostalgia hit me and all of the memories came flooding back. You've done us proud Raap.

 

It's unfortunate that the match you played ended within 3 minutes due to an infantry rush.

 

I'll be reducing the potential for those early rushes to have a chance at success for the final release.

 

I was apart of that rush, and only got on when I was going to act protection for the engineer that we had to cap the icebergs...needless to say the driver got a major albeit unsaid WTF from me.

 

 

It's good that it happened, it showed a design flaw. It's just unfortunate that was the only testing to happen all Sunday.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Raap

[Einstein]

It IS underlying thoughts. It never had any other name. I think he might be confusing it with Second Hand.

 

Fact check:

 

 

 

 

[Ice]

Naval transports will also be a little flimsier in the next hotfix.

It would be nice if ship maneuverability could be tweaked a bit. Currently any attempt to turn while going at a respectable speed results in the boat going completely sideways and often slamming into a cliff.

 

 

It IS underlying thoughts. It never had any other name. I think he might be confusing it with Second Hand.

 

Fact check:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We may have to dig a little deeper into this matter.

[ganein14]

If cruisers, for whatever reason are added, should be limited to one on the map at any one time similar to the MK II from Reborn, have twice the range and total damage of a V2, but half the rate of fire as said V2 and as accurate as a rifleman jumping and moving. It should also move slower, say, half the speed of the mammoth tank going uphill as well.

[Raap]

No vehicle bay would be able to build it, so I'd have to arrive from off-map like helicopters, and even then it'd look weird and massive... Bigger than most icebergs on HW.

 

I just don't think a cruiser would work in APB, just like other units like the Helicarrier make no sense to have.

 

Speaking of HW.... You know, the subject this thread was about? Today is the last day I can realistically take feedback under consideration before the planned changes are locked and implemented (and tested). If it's on your mind, post it here now.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Raap

[ganein14]

Well, one of my concerns have already been mentioned. Buildings too easy to capture, but to be honest, I've always felt that bases should be more fortress like.