A Path Beyond Submit an APB Map Request!

[Einstein]

Yeah bases are good.

 

Also, awesome choice! I know I won't be the only one that will be thrilled to see this map return!

[Raap]

Yeah bases are good.

 

Also, awesome choice! I know I won't be the only one that will be thrilled to see this map return!

 

It'll certainly be a spiritual successor to classic Fjord, but in no way will it be identical to classic Fjord. It is very much going to be a completely new level, featuring a large range of new art assets.

 

It wouldn't be a Raap level however, if I also didn't include special map objectives... So keep an eye out on development updates.

[NodGuy]

A new Fjord? Awesome! I can't wait to see it.

 

Will the time of day change? Didn't it used to be a nighttime map? Memory's failing me here. I wouldn't mind seeing a map set during a twilight.

[Raap]

A new Fjord? Awesome! I can't wait to see it.

 

Will the time of day change? Didn't it used to be a nighttime map? Memory's failing me here. I wouldn't mind seeing a map set during a twilight.

 

It'll be a night time map to make better use of light sources.

 

Edit: And that's all I'll share for now. Keep an eye on development updates in the near future.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Raap

[Pushwall]

I wouldn't mind seeing a map set during a twilight.

 

Like Pacific Threat or Fissure...?

[NodGuy]

 

I wouldn't mind seeing a map set during a twilight.

 

Like Pacific Threat or Fissure...?

 

 

Are they... ? I haven't played in a while.

[AZ-Stalker]

 

iIt'll be a night time map to make better use of light sources.

Please don't make it too dark. Maybe experiment with something a bit lighter than how Hostile Waters looked like? Just after sundown perhaps (if it can't be a daytime thing), maybe more stylized and blueish? In any case, it's entirely your call so good luck!

Edited April 3, 2016 by AZ-Stalker

[devilslayersbane]

I'd like to see an objective based map similar to RA_seamist, but it be a D-Day style assault (not necessarily amphibious, but the soviets have a ton of bunkers and cover for infantry on large cliff-faces) where the allies have to assault the weakened soviet base (building wrecks welcome) and the soviets have limited resources.

[Raap]

A moving battlefield is something on my to-do list, although not a priority. Many years ago at BHP, Chronojam even had me create the geometry of a level for that.

 

The problem is such maps need constant QA testing and W3D Hub currently does not have the testing team size and attendance rate required to logistically pull off a level of such design scope.

 

Further more, in the time required to make such a map, I could create 5 other maps instead.

 

"Soft" mission objectives are the best thing I can do in a realistic time frame, such as those on Hostile Waters... Oh, and Fjord will have special objectives as well (not to mention quite a few secrets that will take you months to figure out!).

Edited April 3, 2016 by Raap

[AZ-Stalker]

Considering you are making a Fjord-inspired spiritual successor map, I assume it will go under a new name to avoid confusion? Have you thought about what to call it?

[SarahNautili]

Oh, and Fjord will have special objectives as well (not to mention quite a few secrets that will take you months to figure out!).

ya know, I've heard plenty of devs say "never underestimate players" in regards to well hidden easter eggs sooo

 

[ChopBam]

Considering you are making a Fjord-inspired spiritual successor map, I assume it will go under a new name to avoid confusion? Have you thought about what to call it?

In that sense, I guess all the current maps are spiritual successors, since they have a similar layout or idea to the originals, but in many other ways are completely different. My opinion is that it should just be called Fjord or Fjords. Consider the new Zama, and when players wanted old Zama they called it ClassicZama.

 

 

Two bases wedged into opposite corners of a map, where one of the teams is a bit more elevated than the other and backed up against a cliff corner, while the other team is backed up against a shore corner. The cliff layout and location of the entrances is similar in design, there is missile silo warfare, and even attack routes show a resemblance to one another.

The same could be said of Bonsai vs Zama

 

True, but frankly I think this strengthens my point. Do we want three maps like this? And all nuke maps, at that?

[Killing_You]

I still wish Zama was an air map with no nukes. I liked how beautiful the map looked from above, and intercepting enemy assaults. Oh well, wishful thinking.

[gammae102]

It appears I'm a little too late, but I always thought it's funny that our namesake map, A Path Beyond, isn't in the rotation. That's one that could really use remake.

[delta]

 

Considering you are making a Fjord-inspired spiritual successor map, I assume it will go under a new name to avoid confusion? Have you thought about what to call it?

In that sense, I guess all the current maps are spiritual successors, since they have a similar layout or idea to the originals, but in many other ways are completely different. My opinion is that it should just be called Fjord or Fjords. Consider the new Zama, and when players wanted old Zama they called it ClassicZama.

What if there's more than two iterations of a map?

 

It appears I'm a little too late, but I always thought it's funny that our namesake map, A Path Beyond, isn't in the rotation. That's one that could really use remake.

I seem to recall the issue with A Path Beyond being too large or something? Anyway, when was the last time we had this map...0.9935?

[Einstein]

 

Well its happened before! (remember glacier?)

 

And yes, RA_apathbeyond was too big before sprinting. Now..? I doubt anyone (besides me) has loaded the thing up to imagine how it might feel.

[gammae102]

 

 

It appears I'm a little too late, but I always thought it's funny that our namesake map, A Path Beyond, isn't in the rotation. That's one that could really use remake.

I seem to recall the issue with A Path Beyond being too large or something? Anyway, when was the last time we had this map...0.9935?

 

You are probably right about 0.9935 being the last time we had the map. And it was definitely too large. I might be mistaken about this, but I believe there was aircraft as well, which made it virtually impossible to mount a successful rush across such far distances. There were a lot of base defenses as well, with the Soviets having two Tesla coils that covered virtually the whole base. But if the map were completely redone, it's size could be scaled down. Rather than vast open fields (like all in all maps up until Delta, really), add smaller areas with more dense vegetation. Maybe add naval. IMO it was one of the best maps in Red Alert, and it could be a lot of fun in APB as well if done right. Also, the mod is named after it.

[ChopBam]

 

 

Considering you are making a Fjord-inspired spiritual successor map, I assume it will go under a new name to avoid confusion? Have you thought about what to call it?

In that sense, I guess all the current maps are spiritual successors, since they have a similar layout or idea to the originals, but in many other ways are completely different. My opinion is that it should just be called Fjord or Fjords. Consider the new Zama, and when players wanted old Zama they called it ClassicZama.

 

What if there's more than two iterations of a map?

 

Name it something else? It's not really that likely to happen, considering the map-makers are so limited in number and probably won't want to spend all that time reiterating one map.

 

 

It appears I'm a little too late, but I always thought it's funny that our namesake map, A Path Beyond, isn't in the rotation. That's one that could really use remake.

I seem to recall the issue with A Path Beyond being too large or something? Anyway, when was the last time we had this map...0.9935?

 

Did the tunnel version exist in Beta? It's pretty likely (since I didn't make maps during the .9935 era), although yes, it wasn't a stock map.

 

 

 

It appears I'm a little too late, but I always thought it's funny that our namesake map, A Path Beyond, isn't in the rotation. That's one that could really use remake.

I seem to recall the issue with A Path Beyond being too large or something? Anyway, when was the last time we had this map...0.9935?

 

You are probably right about 0.9935 being the last time we had the map. And it was definitely too large. I might be mistaken about this, but I believe there was aircraft as well, which made it virtually impossible to mount a successful rush across such far distances. There were a lot of base defenses as well, with the Soviets having two Tesla coils that covered virtually the whole base. But if the map were completely redone, it's size could be scaled down. Rather than vast open fields (like all in all maps up until Delta, really), add smaller areas with more dense vegetation. Maybe add naval. IMO it was one of the best maps in Red Alert, and it could be a lot of fun in APB as well if done right. Also, the mod is named after it.

 

I was thinking maybe the bases wouldn't need to be in opposite corners, but moved up the coast slightly toward the center. This would allow more attack routes as well.

[SarahNautili]

also of interest on APB the map's size is that back in .9935 everything was a hell of a lot shorter range (or at least that's how it feels when I've gone to dig through the old fanmaps lately). Bullet weapons especially. Which would make the dynamic a hell of a lot different. It'd still need a bt of a shrink, and I like chopbam's idea of putting the bases a bit up the coast from the corners, but overall it'd be a hell of a lot more workable now than in .9935. Or Beta.

 

Also I believe Tunnel APB the map was a beta thing but it was never on the official server or anything. It got made and then... promptly forgotten?

[Raap]

 

Oh, and Fjord will have special objectives as well (not to mention quite a few secrets that will take you months to figure out!).

ya know, I've heard plenty of devs say "never underestimate players" in regards to well hidden easter eggs sooo

 

 

 

Don't underestimate my ability to hide things, either. Not everything is visible when looking at mix/w3d file contents.

 

Don't worry though, the main focus is on the map itself. I learned something during my time on the team, and that is anything that isn't relevant to core gameplay will see very little use, and therefore be a pointless development time sink.

 

As for APathBeyond(.mix), I think you need to change its name to avoid confusion. What about simply "Beyond"?

[SilverShark]

I'd love to see a new map based on urban warfare. Something like a part of a city with rows of multi-story buildings that some of can be garrisoned, and possibly streets, railways, and special tech buildings for engineers to capture. There is a similar map in TSR I think.

[Ice]

I'd love to see a new map based on urban warfare. Something like a part of a city with rows of multi-story buildings that some of can be garrisoned, and possibly streets, railways, and special tech buildings for engineers to capture. There is a similar map in TSR I think.

One of the maps I'd like to develop is a sort of Stalingrad-style map; A ruined city with various objectives, limited vehicle movement, and lots of close combat.

[des1206]

I'd like to see an objective based map similar to RA_seamist, but it be a D-Day style assault (not necessarily amphibious, but the soviets have a ton of bunkers and cover for infantry on large cliff-faces) where the allies have to assault the weakened soviet base (building wrecks welcome) and the soviets have limited resources.

A moving battlefield is something on my to-do list, although not a priority. Many years ago at BHP, Chronojam even had me create the geometry of a level for that.

 

The problem is such maps need constant QA testing and W3D Hub currently does not have the testing team size and attendance rate required to logistically pull off a level of such design scope.

 

Further more, in the time required to make such a map, I could create 5 other maps instead.

 

"Soft" mission objectives are the best thing I can do in a realistic time frame, such as those on Hostile Waters... Oh, and Fjord will have special objectives as well (not to mention quite a few secrets that will take you months to figure out!).

Guys, I remember we had two special objective maps that was like a reverse Assault_Seamist

 

1. First one had Allies spawn on a beachhead with crates and vehicles nearby by but no base. They had to attack a weakened Soviet base. Bunkers had MCTs in them.

 

2. Second one was where the Soviet base had 3 Tesla Coils, with Longbows coming to destroy one of them every 10 minutes. Allied Base was scattered everywhere on the map and the Soviets had to destroy them before time runs out.

Edited April 6, 2016 by des1206

[Raap]

 

I'd like to see an objective based map similar to RA_seamist, but it be a D-Day style assault (not necessarily amphibious, but the soviets have a ton of bunkers and cover for infantry on large cliff-faces) where the allies have to assault the weakened soviet base (building wrecks welcome) and the soviets have limited resources.

A moving battlefield is something on my to-do list, although not a priority. Many years ago at BHP, Chronojam even had me create the geometry of a level for that.

 

The problem is such maps need constant QA testing and W3D Hub currently does not have the testing team size and attendance rate required to logistically pull off a level of such design scope.

 

Further more, in the time required to make such a map, I could create 5 other maps instead.

 

"Soft" mission objectives are the best thing I can do in a realistic time frame, such as those on Hostile Waters... Oh, and Fjord will have special objectives as well (not to mention quite a few secrets that will take you months to figure out!).

Guys, I remember we had two special objective maps that was like a reverse Assault_Seamist

 

1. First one had Allies spawn on a beachhead with crates and vehicles nearby by but no base. They had to attack a weakened Soviet base. Bunkers had MCTs in them.

 

2. Second one was where the Soviet base had 3 Tesla Coils, with Longbows coming to destroy one of them every 10 minutes. Allied Base was scattered everywhere on the map and the Soviets had to destroy them before time runs out.

 

 

It's possible to do a hell of a lot more than that. W3D is very flexible in terms of level design limitations... The only true limitations are real world logistics, and extremely outlandish functionality that would require scripts changes/additions (which means you need to write those yourself).

[ChopBam]

Extremely outlandish functionality, like all the AIs not running in straight lines?

[Einstein]

1. First one had Allies spawn on a beachhead with crates and vehicles nearby by but no base. They had to attack a weakened Soviet base. Bunkers had MCTs in them.

That would be RA_AlliedAssault! And....

 

2. Second one was where the Soviet base had 3 Tesla Coils, with Longbows coming to destroy one of them every 10 minutes. Allied Base was scattered everywhere on the map and the Soviets had to destroy them before time runs out.

That would be RA_FinalBarricade! Both maps are available in my collection!

[SarahNautili]

Extremely outlandish functionality, like all the AIs not running in straight lines?

you can just do what renegade co-op does which is just fill every available space with an endless amount of ramjet snipers and flame tanks that works wonderfully... /sarcasm

[Isaac The Madd]

you can just do what renegade co-op does which is just fill every available space with an endless amount of ramjet snipers and flame tanks that works wonderfully... /sarcasm

You mean so they all get stuck on each other so it then works even better.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Isaac The Madd

[Raap]

Extremely outlandish functionality, like all the AIs not running in straight lines?

 

When I wrote that post I did not consider AI in the level. I should probably have mentioned that.

 

So yeah, expecting a non-retarded AI in W3D is in fact, one of those outlandish ideas that won't happen unless you re-write the AI from scratch yourself (good luck).

 

You can do pretty much anything else, though, including the concept of a moving, objective-orientated battlefield.

 

Edit: To be clear, when I say moving battlefield, I do not mean "The battlefield terrain is literally moving, like holy shit it got legs and started running", I mean that the playable space and game logic can shift from one level region to another within the same game session. For example you can have a convoy escort level design where attack and defend objectives move and are enabled and disabled based on level progression.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Raap

[des1206]

Can we do a co-op map? I remember there was one map where we had to protect an Allied MCV from Soviet tanks and paratroopers coming from all directions. You can donate to build defenses.

Edited April 7, 2016 by des1206