A Path Beyond Regarding Hostile Waters

[Raap]

Hello everyone,

 

I had an opportunity to play APB earlier today and I realized Hostile Waters was removed from the map rotation. Recently I had a conversation with Pushwall about this map, so that decision doesn't surprise me. But what I personally haven't been able to determine is why people dislike the map?

So here is a poll, I'll give it a few days to let it generate a clear result. I'll discuss my options with Pushwall after that, so that I might perhaps obtain the updated assets and do some overhauls - if the map itself is the problem.

Meanwhile, let me know in this thread what you believe could be the problem Hostile Waters has that causes it to make players leave the server when it comes up in rotation, and I'm open to suggestions.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Raap

[Raap]

Poll fixed.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Raap

[NodGuy]

Oh wow. I don't even remember which map it is. I'll fire up the game real quick to refresh my memory.

Edit: Ah, this map. I want to say that people leave because it's mainly naval and air combat. If the Soviets aren't coordinated then the Allies can decimate them, because Longbows and Rocket Soldier combinations are deadly against Hinds and the submarines, and Gunboats absolutely destroy Missile Submarines. So if the former doesn't cover the Missile Submarines with Attack Submarines and/or Hinds then they're just easy targets. Because of this maybe Soviet players feel that they are unable to achieve victory so they leave? Maybe the Allies leave because they just want to captain Destroyers but have no defense against Attack Submarines, unless covered by allies.

Or maybe it is solely because there is no War Factory to pump out the vehicles players enjoy?

Edited April 17, 2017 by NodGuy

[Pushwall]

I don't get the feeling that the capture logic is the issue, surely if it was then the same people would be put off by Pipeline too...

[Raap]

4 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

I don't get the feeling that the capture logic is the issue, surely if it was then the same people would be put off by Pipeline too...

I put it in there just in case. The poll is multi-choice, people can pick more than one thing. For example maybe the problem is the capture logic in combination with the lack of a land route? Maybe the capture benefits are too great and the icebergs too easy to camp?

[Pushwall]

An idea building off of what NodGuy said: what if the map did not have a Barracks (making it the ONLY map with buildings to lack one! ...besides Lunar which doesn't really count because its WF has the functions of the Bar/Silo/Hpad also built into it) but Engineers were able to be bought anyway? Not only does that solve the "Barracks got rushed insta-lose" issue for good, but it also stops iceberg campers from having too much impact since the only infantry you get are rifles, techies, sergeants, captains and engineers - especially once I patch naval armour to be more resistant to bullets.

They can still get some anti-naval/air weapons from the crates to give them some impact, especially the Allies whose captains can't hit submerged subs, but they can't refill these rapidly enough for people to sit on the icebergs forever ramboing every vehicle that comes their way, due to the crate spawn rate/distance and how they'll have to rush all the way back to their LST every so often to make use of its refill feature if they can't get good crates, which also gives another good reason for people to destroy them which reduces the clutter issue!

It wouldn't hamper LST rushes that much either as sergeants/captains/engineers are perfectly viable LST rush infantry - you only miss out on the extra benefits of a medic/flamethrower. I could even put a Missile Silo in the empty space previously occupied by the Barracks, to give LST attacks more presence in spite of the limited infantry.

I feel Pacific Threat doesn't really suffer the same issue of what NodGuy said because it only takes about 20 seconds and no transport for you to wade a rifleman over to any annoying rocket soldiers.

[FRAYDO]

I had voted for "Lack of a land-base route". While it's a large map and I cannot see how a land route would be possible other than tunnels connecting the two islands, nevermind the journey that will be crossing that distance, I feel this may be the issue. Once either side (Allies mostly) secures the middle icebergs, the opposing team may as well be out of luck for the remainder of the match.

While this can be attributed to lack of coordination among team players, I have to agree with NodGuy that Allies hold an advantage over the Soviets here. I understand it's about map control, as well as the benefits of capturing the neutral structures, but at times it feels hopeless for Soviets to make a comeback. Hinds get decimated by Rocket Soldiers, making that approach unfeasible alone, and Allied naval superiority rules out Soviet LST rushes. With those as the only two attack routes, it becomes a waiting game of the Allies moving off the icebergs and making a run at the Naval Yard and game over.

[NodGuy]

I didn't mean to vote for "Naval + air gameplay balance (the interaction between naval and air units)" so feel free to subtract that vote when you close the poll.

Edited April 17, 2017 by NodGuy

[Raap]

A few notes before I got to go;

• The lack of the feeling of "pulling vehicles" doesn't appear to be the problem since other non-ground vehicle maps operate fine.
• Barracks destruction gimping a team is a problem, removing it might help, but making Engineers baseline might be easier - Although I'm not sure if that also goes for preset management (too many small differences in individual maps might cause development visibility issues down the line).
• If a land route lacking is indeed the problem; fair warning, this would be the most time intensive problem to take on, since it requires a major redesign, and won't look logical, while not being a guarantee to make the map more enjoyable.
• Air versus naval may need some tweaks in where naval units do more damage to them, or air units deal less damage to naval units. I don't think having your Gunboat blown up by a Hind which your weapon cannot reach is a fun experience. At least Submarines can hide from Longbows, but that also can be seen as non-engaging gameplay.

 

Concepts currently on my personal drawing board for a potential Hostile Waters "Redux", please do not take these as promises, the actual changes remain dependent on the poll results;

• Improved aesthetics for ice appearance, iceberg infantry play space, and base islands. It goes without saying that developing Siege showed me there is room for improvement (and room to murder your frame rate).
• Include a few geometry optimization techniques I picked up after HW was released, this will counterbalance any visual improvements in terms of performance cost.
• CONCEPT STAGE: Capturable "Naval Repair Yard (working title)" - This might potentially replace the SD and Refill Pad in the event that the removal of air units is the change the map requires to have.
• CONCEPT STAGE: Capturable "Coastal Defense Missile Launcher (working title)" - If infantry-to-naval capacity is diminished and capturing made easier, a new capturable defense building may be added, likely non-AI controlled and incapable of aiming high upwards. The purpose of this would be to retain the value of holding the icebergs for defense, but in a more controllable fashion.
• CONCEPT STAGE: Additional bonus objective revolving around NPC teamed cargo ships randomly appearing on one side of the map and slowly sailing in a straight line to the opposite side. If the cargo ship makes it to the other side intact, the team that specific cargo ship belongs to receives a credit bonus. Destroying an enemy team cargo ship prevents that team from gaining credits from that ship. Cargo ships would respawn at specific intervals but at semi-random locations. The purpose here would be to divert naval unit attention to more open waters, away from bases and icebergs, as well as provide a second source of income besides the capturable silos. Disclaimer: Code feasibility undetermined.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Raap

[Pushwall]

7 minutes ago, Raap said:

• but making Engineers baseline might be easier

One of the biggest reasons to keep your Barracks alive is being able to quickly repair your buildings in an emergency. Granted, on this map that's too important since the Engineer doubles as the capture guy - but if Engineers were non-Barracks units on most other maps there'd be a problem. The Barracks is already considerably less important than the War Factory (barring fringe cases like Under and Pipeline) as it is.

[Raap]

Just now, Pushwall said:

One of the biggest reasons to keep your Barracks alive is being able to quickly repair your buildings in an emergency. Granted, on this map that's too important - but if Engineers were non-Barracks units on most other maps there'd be a problem. The Barracks is already considerably less important than the War Factory (barring fringe cases like Under and Pipeline) as it is.

Baseline on this map, specifically. Baseline across the game was too silly a concept, that I didn't even think to clarify that. My bad!

[Pushwall]

45 minutes ago, Raap said:

Baseline on this map, specifically. Baseline across the game was too silly a concept, that I didn't even think to clarify that. My bad!

Ah, sorry. I didn't think you meant specifically this map because keeping Engys baseline here without actually getting rid of the Barracks doesn't do anything about the issue of rocket soldiers being gods among men in situations where they can't be hit - which in standard maps is OK because there are hardly any places where that's the case, but here their entire playing field is clifftops that the "ground vehicles" can't hit or drive onto and enemy infantry have trouble reaching.

[ChopBam]

The objective is too hard to achieve.

It's basically a meatgrinder where the main battle units take a long time to cross an area of high visibility from the air (and from the ground when not in the icebergs) to run straight into a bunch of defenses. The only other choices are left or right, which is only a slight deviation from the middle and still has the problem of being spotted, taking a long time to get there, and running into side defenses.

A team's only hopes are luck by a rush not being spotted for a while (impossible against a skilled team), or sheer skill imbalance (impossible against a skilled team).

An alternative scenario to all this is base trading well before the end, where !gameover NOW becomes a well-used commodity.

We can all agree that most games end up being a spinning hamster wheel of red and blue in the secondary, center objectives.

Another alternative scenario to this is actually having a good game, but it's so rare that players would rather ragequit than screw around with the lottery.

[Raap]

I believe that the primary objective problem can be resolved with a population scaling effect.

In low populations, the Advanced Naval Yard/Sub Pen is destroyed too quickly and easily, while in large games it becomes nearly impossible (especially if Engineers become baseline on the map), correct?

If this is the case, then @Pushwall can try scaling the Advanced Naval Yard/Sub Pen health DOWN as more players enter the game, although not by a crazy amount.

As for air to naval balance issues, that's a topic not in my control but certainly something Pushwall could look into. The only problem is that this specific type of gameplay only exists on two maps, so gathering metrics and feedback can be a challenge.

Finally, the lack of a land route seems like a common concern. The problem is, the map was never designed for that, and I remain uncertain if adding a land route will solve anything, because it would be a VERY LONG walk from base to base. But what I could do is spice up the icebergs some more by adding a 2nd Naval Transport landing area near each base. Do note that the icebergs have a rather 'rigid' design due to the second terrain layer wrapping, so adding to them will take a little effort, but less than adding a completely new land route.

 

Edit: @Pushwall you may not wish to try and remove the Barracks completely, since they are connected into a web of script logic that is part of the base destruction sequence. Making Engineers baseline should be enough. After all, without rocket soldiers, air power would be unstoppable.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Raap

[Pushwall]

2 hours ago, Raap said:

If this is the case, then @Pushwall can try scaling the Advanced Naval Yard/Sub Pen health DOWN as more players enter the game, although not by a crazy amount.

Problem there is scaling health. Objects' health maximums are set in stone, so reducing health would be pointless as people could repair it anyway, and would be detrimental to an attack team if the player count changed during their attack anyway. Oh, you got that NY down to 100/750 health? Too bad, someone left in anger and now the playercount says it should be 650 health, so it's back up to 650/750 health now. Who needs golden wrenches when you can just ragequit?

And I get the feeling swapping out the entire building controller for a new one will not fly (last time I remember spawning a building controller midgame it led to a crash), and even if it did, it would fully heal it every time the player count changed anyway. There's a reason the defense logic is handled by replacing the armour class with a different one. Which you can't do with actual buildings because buildings have two armour types: one for the exterior and one for the MCT. I haven't tried using the armour replace script on it but there are clearly 4 things that could happen, ranging from undesirable to nothing:

• it replaces the exterior armour and not the MCT (meaning repairs and infantry assaults are equally effective at all player counts)
• it replaces the MCT armour but not the exterior (so it only affects repairs and infantry assaults, and not naval/air rushes)
• it replaces both armour types with the same new armour type (so the MCT and walls behave identically, either making repairs/infantry assaults completely ineffectual if we choose the exterior armour, or making repairs too easy because a golden wrench works from anywhere if we choose the MCT armour)
• it doesn't replace any armour (so it just doesn't work)

Also, Allies already win too easily by Longbow rushing the sub pen. Scaling its health down as it becomes easier to amass the 5 longbows required for a kill sounds... counterintuitive? Same goes for armour, though to a lesser extent if it follows the same "don't affect limited-ammo units" rule as defenses - but if the LBs fail, the rocket soldier pilots will just have an even easier time finishing the job.

Maybe the "rushes too easy to spot" issue can be fixed by fog being even thicker than it already is - but then Longbows become even more overpowered at base destruction - something that is, again, normally not an huge issue (but still something I'll be nerfing with slightly lower building damage) as on other maps it's not too hard to spot an LB rush before it happens and then either intercept with rockets/TTs or just engy-camp the expected building - the latter being the only option here. Maybe the sub pen needs a set of battlements made out of indestructible SAM sites, devised by the Soviets after seeing how incredibly effective the castle is on Siege? 

[Jeod]

What about moving the barracks locations to an underground room connected to the surface of a base via tunnel? Granted that wouldn't make sense map-wise, since who builds a barracks underground on an island, but it would make the most vital structure harder to get to.

[OrangeP47]

TBH, while I think the lack of a land route is an issue, it's kind of an overly simplistic explanation (not saying it's wrong).

The thing is, I've had a few good games on that map, and others have enjoyed those specific games too. However, the problem is that everyone leaving becomes a feedback loop. The map isn't fun when it's just 1 v 1 or 2 v 2 or even 3 v 3, it's a map that requires a lot of people to have an enjoyable experience (that scaling conversation nonwithstanding). Furthermore, the people that stay tend to be those less familiar with the map, so they don't know what they're doing which both means things are going to be worse for everyone and their own experience as they learn, and those newcomers aren't going to get the good experience anyway because most everyone else is left, both impeding enjoyment and how fast they learn the map, which then in turn leads to them becoming ones who will drop when the map comes up in rotation the next time maybe.

It took me probably 8 games of Pacific Threat to even learn the map, simply because that's how long it took for enough people to be there to actually have a game. I think the best thing for the map would probably be if people had a little more fortitude and didn't leave or afk every time a map they didn't like came up, it just ruins it for the rest of us. Yeah, I'll agree the map might need tweaked, but if we all took the 'we're in this together' mindset then we'd at least be able to make due with the existing map for the time being. If you're someone that has things to do and take PT as a cue to go do those, that's fine, but I just get annoyed at the people that leave and then come back as soon as the map switches to something else, it's like 'thanks for leaving me here all by myself'

[Isaac The Madd]

I have two suggestions for a "land" route.

You could make a long windy underground/underwater tunnel from base to base with hazards and such. (Flooded sections, collapsed branches, and maze-like branching are a few examples I can think of.)

Another "land" route would a series of rope bridges between icebergs connected the shore to on both sides by tunnels to islands near the icebergs.

[Raap]

2 hours ago, Jeod said:

What about moving the barracks locations to an underground room connected to the surface of a base via tunnel? Granted that wouldn't make sense map-wise, since who builds a barracks underground on an island, but it would make the most vital structure harder to get to.

Generalcamo was quite keen on the idea of adding an underground section to the bases, but I was never convinced that they would add much to gameplay. Typically base tunnels become more relevant when land based approaches may occur and if entry/exit points exist outside the bases, otherwise they are just an isolated tunnel that people forget even exists.

1 hour ago, OrangeP47 said:

TBH, while I think the lack of a land route is an issue, it's kind of an overly simplistic explanation (not saying it's wrong).

The thing is, I've had a few good games on that map, and others have enjoyed those specific games too. However, the problem is that everyone leaving becomes a feedback loop. The map isn't fun when it's just 1 v 1 or 2 v 2 or even 3 v 3, it's a map that requires a lot of people to have an enjoyable experience (that scaling conversation nonwithstanding). Furthermore, the people that stay tend to be those less familiar with the map, so they don't know what they're doing which both means things are going to be worse for everyone and their own experience as they learn, and those newcomers aren't going to get the good experience anyway because most everyone else is left, both impeding enjoyment and how fast they learn the map, which then in turn leads to them becoming ones who will drop when the map comes up in rotation the next time maybe.

It took me probably 8 games of Pacific Threat to even learn the map, simply because that's how long it took for enough people to be there to actually have a game. I think the best thing for the map would probably be if people had a little more fortitude and didn't leave or afk every time a map they didn't like came up, it just ruins it for the rest of us. Yeah, I'll agree the map might need tweaked, but if we all took the 'we're in this together' mindset then we'd at least be able to make due with the existing map for the time being. If you're someone that has things to do and take PT as a cue to go do those, that's fine, but I just get annoyed at the people that leave and then come back as soon as the map switches to something else, it's like 'thanks for leaving me here all by myself'

The fact HW plays different is intended, but I see exactly what you mean. Over a year ago when Delta was released, I had a lot of requests to bring this map back. I'm wondering if the changes I made to the map compared to the ancient version are the problem, or if it is balance issues that causes the drops. But I do know that a lot of people enjoyed the old version for being purely a naval-only map (the old version had no air power and the icebergs were inaccessible).

11 minutes ago, Isaac The Madd said:

I have two suggestions for a "land" route.

You could make a long windy underground/underwater tunnel from base to base with hazards and such. (Flooded sections, collapsed branches, and maze-like branching are a few examples I can think of.)

Another "land" route would a series of rope bridges between icebergs connected the shore to on both sides by tunnels to islands near the icebergs.

Even if I made a straight line tunnel going from one base to the next, it'd still be long, longer than the tunnel under Complex, which is quite boring. If I created a tunnel system with what you described, it'd take 10 minutes to traverse by foot, and by the end of it, your base may have been blown up. On top of that, such a long tunnel would make zero sense to have in that region.

As for bridges, something along those lines did cross my mind alongside adding a 2nd Naval Transport deploy spot near each base. If adding a land route was the decision to be made, then that is roughly the way I intend to go.

[OrangeP47]

1 hour ago, Raap said:

The fact HW plays different is intended, but I see exactly what you mean. Over a year ago when Delta was released, I had a lot of requests to bring this map back. I'm wondering if the changes I made to the map compared to the ancient version are the problem, or if it is balance issues that causes the drops. But I do know that a lot of people enjoyed the old version for being purely a naval-only map (the old version had no air power and the icebergs were inaccessible).

Oh don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that it being different was the problem, per se. I was saying that because it's different it's hard for a lot of us to even know what's going on on the map because we can't learn by ourselves and all the people that already know are the ones that flee when it comes up, so there's nobody to teach us.

Edit:  A thought just hit me, relating the bottom section of that post that I didn't quote.  What about a few free starter naval units? One issue I've noticed is the map can be a bit slow to get started, as naval units can be expensive.

Edited April 17, 2017 by OrangeP47

[Raap]

1 hour ago, OrangeP47 said:

 

Edit:  A thought just hit me, relating the bottom section of that post that I didn't quote.  What about a few free starter naval units? One issue I've noticed is the map can be a bit slow to get started, as naval units can be expensive.

That's for @Pushwall to respond to, since he opted to remove one of the two Ore Silo's I originally added to the map exactly for the purpose of speeding up the economy, while making iceberg control less critical for your teams economy (the SD and Refill Pad already are extremely helpful assets, the capturable Ore Silo's were intended as icing on the cake).

Edited April 17, 2017 by Raap

[Jeod]

1 minute ago, Raap said:

That's for @Pushwall to respond to, since he opted to remove one of the two Ore Silo's I originally added to the map exactly for the purpose of speeding up the economy, while making iceberg control less critical for your teams economy (the SD and Refill Pad already are extremely helpful assets).

I don't know if that will work well. With the points you (OrangeP47) made about newer players not knowing what to do on the map (naval units are scarcely used in APB maps in the first place), the victory on any HW map will be whichever team has the veterans. What do you do when you start a new map for the first time ever and have no money to buy a unit? Explore! And where do you explore to? Toward the enemy base to scout the map. I'd wager more often than not, new players don't realize the map has naval yards and sub pens until they try to buy a unit and see the purchase icons.

[Pushwall]

38 minutes ago, Raap said:

That's for @Pushwall to respond to, since he opted to remove one of the two Ore Silo's I originally added to the map exactly for the purpose of speeding up the economy

It's now baked into the advanced naval structures.

[des1206]

@Pushwall

I say take out all base defences (except AA) in the front. This will encourage more aggressive direct naval attacks and LST landings. Keep the base defenses in the back but take out the AA. This will reward helis to circle around to the back (takes too long for boats/LST to do so).

[Raap]

22 hours ago, Raap said:

 

• CONCEPT STAGE: Capturable "Coastal Defense Missile Launcher (working title)" - If infantry-to-naval capacity is diminished and capturing made easier, a new capturable defense building may be added, likely non-AI controlled and incapable of aiming high upwards. The purpose of this would be to retain the value of holding the icebergs for defense, but in a more controllable fashion.

 

I've taken a moment to visualize how this would look, here is a "draft design": 

If the need for a capturable defense exists then this would be it.

[OrangeP47]

4 hours ago, Jeod said:

I don't know if that will work well. With the points you (OrangeP47) made about newer players not knowing what to do on the map (naval units are scarcely used in APB maps in the first place), the victory on any HW map will be whichever team has the veterans. What do you do when you start a new map for the first time ever and have no money to buy a unit? Explore! And where do you explore to? Toward the enemy base to scout the map. I'd wager more often than not, new players don't realize the map has naval yards and sub pens until they try to buy a unit and see the purchase icons.

Well I'm not sure the newbie bias is quite *that* bad. For example, though, I was thinking more about having to learn the angles of approach that any map would have. As of yet I don't have any tactics for the map beyond 'try not to die' once I get in a ship or a sub.

[Raap]

The poll so far (as well as the written feedback) show a clear indication there is at least a desire for a notable level terrain revamp. This will have to be a very substantial overhaul in order to have the desired effect, and I'll see what I can do without having to adjust the current gameplay logic layout by building terrain around those spots instead.

The concern for naval-to-air balance follows up, but this I leave firmly in the capable hands of Pushwall. Hopefully, balance metrics from PacificThreat help out in this matter, if all infantry-generated data can somehow be omitted.

[Raptor29aa]

I have a few suggestions.

-Maybe more than one naval transport access point for the middle island. (It's become too easy to camp)

-AI sams could be player controlled like the cannons on seige. 

Reasoning: the key to controlling the battlefield is controlling the center iceberg. The strategy is to capture everything on the island, camp the only enemy landing point, and then helicopter dominate the enemy. (It takes around 3 or 4 players but it's a sure/easy win for low player count) so an extra landing spot makes it harder to camp/defend. Non-AI sams or some sort of turret would be fun. 

[gammae102]

I think naval vs. aerial is the main problem for this map.  To put it bluntly naval units are far too slow.  Especially when cover is available in the form of the icebergs, it allows the helicopters to run circles around the ships.  Add in the helipad and service depot smack in the middle of the map for easy refills/repairs and it really doesn't make any sense to buy a ship if your team has control of the middle.

How would I fix this?  Make destroyers and missile subs very, very effective against aircraft.  Helicopters already have such great mobility over ships that they should still be able to avoid them relatively easily and strike land-based targets.  Increasing the durability of naval vessels against air pushes more people to get naval units, which to me (Raap can disagree) was always the intention of this map.

I realize this may affect the balance of other maps as well, so if there is concern this will make Destroyers and Missile Subs too powerful I would say nerf them against land targets.

And just one final thought, I'd also get rid of the turrets and flame towers guarding the naval yard/subpen.  Again, I don't think you need more reasons to discourage the use of naval units

[Raap]

I'm giving this a few more days before I talk to Pushwaffles regarding the best course of action to make the level less disliked.

Thanks for the feedback so far.