APB 3.0.2.2: Sample Text

[GeneralCamo]

Another short patch has been released. Get the changelog in the full update!

Red Alert: A Path Beyond Update

Hey everyone. This one is not going to have a long intro, as this is purely just a balance and bug fix patch.

Changelog

GENERAL

• A-Bomb impact timer raised from 55 to 60 seconds.
• A-Bomb flare arming time raised from 0.25 to 1 second.
• Gunboat/Volkov damage to surfaced naval units up by 11% (0.9 to 1.0) and submerged ones up by 25% (0.3 to 0.375).

VEHICLES

• Destroyer turret can now rotate a full 360 degrees instead of 180.
• Gunboat turret's lower limit on vertical tilt loosened from -6.25 to -7.5 degrees.
• Gunboat now drops depth charges from the sides rather than behind.
• Attack Sub damage down from 75 to 70.
• MAD Tank health down from 500 to 400.
• Naval Transport health down from 250 to 200.

AESTHETICS

• Gunboat, Destroyer and Naval Transport radar dishes rotate now.
• Gunboat and Destroyer bob up and down slightly.

MAP CHANGES

• RA_AS_Seamist: Cruisers actually shoot the Soviet base again instead of the ocean.
• RA_ForestOfIllusion: The boss takes double damage from shock rifles.
• RA_RidgeWar: Re-added Tesla Coil to the Soviet base in its 3.0 position, removed Flame Tower near its position.
• RA_RidgeWar: Re-arranged external flame towers to be less exploitable.
• RA_RidgeWar: Fixed floating turret at distant Allied service depot.
• RA_RidgeWar: AA gun at distant Allied service depot is actually centered on the roof of the shack now, which should make it less exploitable.
• RA_Wasteland: Fixed jukebox not being delayed.

---

This patch is live on the launcher! Grab it now, and be on the lookout for more updates!

[Einstein]

Sample Text.

 

At least "Cold Fusion" and "Nuclear Winter" were creative

 

Totally kidding, nice set of bugfixes

[delta]

Oh hmm, that would explain how I almost got owned as the CC by someone wielding a shock rifle just earlier.

[Raap]

Seems like Naval might finally be close to equal balance now. Of course, we're missing a certain map to verify that completely... (my fault, got hit by a slight delay).

[Alstar]

"Gunboat now drops depth charges from the sides rather than behind."

 

[ganein14]

About the Depth charges, are they shot to the side or just rolled off?

[Pushwall]

Rolled off

[Ice]

Overall good changes, although I don't know about the Destroyer's turret rotating 360 degrees; Looks pretty weird seeing it shoot missiles through itself.

[Pushwall]

Overall good changes, although I don't know about the Destroyer's turret rotating 360 degrees; Looks pretty weird seeing it shoot missiles through itself.

 

The destroyer was refusing to fire sometimes (both the depth charges and the missiles). Usually when it's close to land, which it has to be to hit certain buildings on certain maps. Not sure why but granting full rotation to the turret fixes that.

[Raap]

 

Overall good changes, although I don't know about the Destroyer's turret rotating 360 degrees; Looks pretty weird seeing it shoot missiles through itself.

 

The destroyer was refusing to fire sometimes (both the depth charges and the missiles). Usually when it's close to land, which it has to be to hit certain buildings on certain maps. Not sure why but granting full rotation to the turret fixes that.

 

 

I believe I mentioned that this is how I fixed a similar problem back in the day. No idea why it happens either, just some typical W3D weirdness.

[delta]

Haven't had much chance to try it out yet, but how does having Gunboat dropping depth charges from the side instead of rear change things?

[Raap]

Haven't had much chance to try it out yet, but how does having Gunboat dropping depth charges from the side instead of rear change things?

 

I'm not sure, probably to nerf backwards sailing since that now no longer serves any purpose. Still, since the charges now drop from alternating directions, it will involve more luck to hit submarines with them (especially since the proximity detonation only works half the time even when directly on top of a sub).

 

That being said, in a straight up engagement a Gunboat can destroy an Attack Sub with its main cannon, as long as the Gunboat doesn't miss, which can happen with the camera position blocking your view.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Raap

[Isaac The Madd]

Can we move the depth charge racks on the model now that we have changed where depth charges fire from.

[Pushwall]

which can happen with the camera position blocking your view.

 

This is what the alternate camera is for.

[ganein14]

 

which can happen with the camera position blocking your view.

 

This is what the alternate camera is for.

 

You'd be surprised at how accurate you can be with it.

[gsg9]

Hy everyone,

 

My suggestion would be create a team balance, because, when I am in a team where we are 3, and the enemy team number is 6, then I could fell myself to be unuseful, so please make team balancer.

 

And my recomendation is, create a unit market where the players could buy bot units, either infantry, or vehicles (like the first ore truck, with technican unit).

[Isaac The Madd]

Or just have the server switch the sides of low ranking team members to compensate.

[gsg9]

yep that would be half enought, but the member number is importance a little bit, because we have to count that, if 3 person is Allied and 4 is Soviet (even if one of the soviet player is young/new) then they have more opportunities... and here the rank is shows only the time. :/

I have tried to do 2 things in a way together, it was disaster, and i just couldn't make it so long :/

[Einstein]

My suggestion would be create a team balance, because, when I am in a team where we are 3, and the enemy team number is 6, then I could fell myself to be unuseful, so please make team balancer.

 

Auto-teaming on join has been a thing since the game's inception. The only possible way (that I'm aware of) to have numbers that badly stacked is for there to already be like 5v6 or 6v6 and then people leave, leaving 3v6. Otherwise check for spies, as these will make the numbers appear skewed.

 

And until the rank system can do much much more than it currently does, I don't think that forcing team swaps would be a feasible thing to do. And even then probably not because it would absolutely piss me and probably others if that were to happen mid-match. Let me give a scenario:

 

The match is 6v6, I'm in my phase tank, rocking out, destroying your base, got 6000 creds in the bank, life is good. I and my team destroy your ref and your barr and steal most of your credits with thieves in the process so your team is pretty screwed. Then half of your team ragequits! What happens now with the auto balancer?? Well it forcefully takes me from my phase tank and puts me on the other team! Now after all that hard work, I'm on the team who's got the base that I just helped destroy....And on top of that, it was such a close match points-wise. So when I move teams, taking all my points with me, it tips the scale and now the team with the dead base is winning by points!

 

Think about this carefully. I realize that this is a bit of a "tall tale" example but its a possible scenario. For the reasons given here and many more I'm sure, forcing team change mid-match does not make sense.

 

Feel free to contest my thoughts...

[ganein14]

I think it's a good idea, but only if its in the first three to five minutes that the auto switch happens.

[Pushwall]

Game-changing events can still happen less than 3 minutes into a round (mainly on Seamist due to the possibility of Allies being bad and losing their vehicles almost instantly, or maps where the ore truck is exposed). I'd say no more than 1 minute.

 

Aside from that, I completely agree with Einstein's angle. Giving ragequitters the power to spite people on the winning team by forcing them onto the losing team is not a good thing. And an auto-balancer doesn't completely benefit newbies either. Do you want serious-business players vote-kicking newbies off their team so that the auto-balancer replaces them with someone possibly more experienced?

 

pushwall [11:14 PM]

@jonwil is there a way to change how long the auto-balancer is active for?

 

jonwil [11:14 PM]

No

Well that's that then

[gsg9]

Actually that's why I recommend another option.

 

Fill the gap with a bot, which would has a good properties, then we not forcing anybody, and also generate, or give a bot which is not so easy to kill, and balancing in a way.

 

Let's take your Scenario ([sG]Einstein): If some team member disconnect, because they feel losing that battle, then give team mates for those who wouldn't give up the hope, even if its absolutely impossible. Because those who would enjoy the game and try to do their best, tell the truth they won't be so happy after a time, when they lose 10/8 matches. :/ And the challenge would be still there, and won't became easier for those who belongs to the winning team.

 

The other that I could imagine, and that should be logical. If in a scenario there is a construction yard on the field, then allow to players, to rebuild their complete base, because the challenge will be increasing, and also the score numbers will lead, and for instance a new player joining, he/she won't feel that: "oh I joined at a wrong time".

 

(I can imagine both side, and I also know how hard to destroy a building if that is covered by good engineers )

 

The most important is for us, to solve this problem in a way, if not that way, then on this way, but it is very important, most of the times I joined to the looser team, and even when I tried my bests, after 8 lost matches I sad: I need to collect more energy to the next battle.

 

It is not just my aim, it's the developer's aim as well to make a good game, for each player.

[Pushwall]

Fill the gap with a bot, which would has a good properties

Bots run in a straight line, don't attack buildings or spies (even if the spy is attacking them), and have all kinds of pathfinding issues, the only "good property" that could possibly compensate for this is turning them into aimbots, which still won't help them hit things that they can't attack or reach. The only reason Camos Canyon Bots is even able to work is because the map is small enough that the whole thing can have pathfinding sectors without causing any problems, and even then, it doesn't work work - the bots only attack each other and players and never attempt to attack the bases because they can't.

 

It is not just my aim, it's the developer's aim as well to make a good game, for each player.

The developer also has to worry about engine limitations. I would gladly add bots to aid uneven teams if there was a way to make it so they only appear when teams are unbalanced, if larger maps could have full pathfinding coverage, if a whole army of bots couldn't be shut down by one untargetable spy, and if bots were even remotely competent at anything other than looking directly at a target and moving forward and firing. But sadly none of these things are true so bots are too much hassle.

[Raap]

 

Fill the gap with a bot, which would has a good properties

Bots run in a straight line, don't attack buildings or spies (even if the spy is attacking them), and have all kinds of pathfinding issues, the only "good property" that could possibly compensate for this is turning them into aimbots, which still won't help them hit things that they can't attack or reach. The only reason Camos Canyon Bots is even able to work is because the map is small enough that the whole thing can have pathfinding sectors without causing any problems, and even then, it doesn't work work - the bots only attack each other and players and never attempt to attack the bases because they can't.

 

 

Actually you could add invisible AI target boxes all over the buildings for them to shoot at.

 

Edit: That is if you wanted to. I'm not sure if you would want to. I'm just saying that this is something you could do.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Raap

[Pushwall]

Actually you could add invisible AI target boxes all over the buildings for them to shoot at.

Still won't help them on any bigger map where they have to contend with pathfind grids that don't connect the two bases because large pathfind grids make LevelEdit go boom.

 

Also won't help any small arms or C4-reliant infantry either.

 

Also those target boxes have to be treated as vehicles or the AI doesn't notice them. Because you know what the netcode would love? Having to keep up with about a dozen extra "vehicles" per building. I'll definitely see about doing this for Camos Canyon Bots though since that is intended to be played offline (and is also designed specifically around the shortcomings of bots, i.e. allies can't buy spies, the map is small enough that it can all have pathfinding, there's so many bots that players will die trying to go solo and abuse the bots' predictable movement pattern, and currently the spawn rate is so high that neither team's bots can get close enough to the enemy base to realise that they can't attack it anyway)

[Isaac The Madd]

Why don't we make the server drop the max health and armor of the team with more players to compensate for people leaving.

[Pushwall]

because we can't?

[Einstein]

I wouldn't classify "people leaving" or even ragequit as a problem per se. It happens in all games. Thus I don't personally feel that we should alter game mechanics to make up for it happening. I've never seen this done on any other game, probably because there are better ways to balance a game. Balancing is already a nightmare, and thats only coming from my perspective as a tester. Its much much worse from the devs' perspective, having all those numbers to contend with and then even when the numbers make sense, having to deal with how it "feels" based on potentially shoddy feedback from blokes like you and me. Its a huge achievement when something truly gets balanced. What you're proposing would require a number of balance possibilities equal to the number of possible player v player combinations.....I think I can hear pushwall saying "nope".

[delta]

Maybe you could enable !swap for the entire match, so that if things get too skewed someone can voluntarily jump over to the other team if they choose to?

[Pushwall]

Except with !swap in the state it's currently in, that would just mean that people who try to swap near the start and get denied will eventually get switched over by someone spiteful on the other team once the other team starts losing.