A Path Beyond APB 3.2.3.0 Changelog

[Coolrock]

35 minutes ago, Cat said:

I just said that I’m well aware not everything translates well from an RTS to a FPS. Things should be changed to balance out the differences, but not change how a class functioned in Red Alert completely. The point of the game was to always keep it as close as possible to the original. Pistols shouldn’t be on infantry that weren’t meant to be anti-infantry. You should know full well when buying a Rocket Soldier, that you’re looking to take out Vehicles, not infantry.  Just my opinion, though. 

31 minutes ago, Raptor29aa said:

Which is just silly. My above comment applies here also. It’s an anti-armor unit, not anti-infantry. Get someone else to support you. 

25 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Agreed completely. 

[NodGuy]

31 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Put me in the camp of a rifle infantry SHOULD be able to beat a rocket infantry.  Money isn't the only metric.  Different units have different roles, and it has nothing to do with hoping your team picks up the slack (though a well oiled team is certainly rewarding).  If you're a rocket infantry, part of the risk of buying one is being on the lookout for anti-infantry units.

I agree with this. You don't a Ranger hoping to take on a Mammoth Tank, so don't buy a Rocket Soldier hoping to take on anti-infantry units.

[Raap]

Thing is, from a gameplay point of view it logically makes zero sense to be using an anti-personnel vehicle to deal with the heaviest tank in the game.

But when you have an infantry unit who found enough space on his back for two rocket/RPG launchers, yet somehow didn't think of bringing a basic pistol to deal with very common scenarios, the game starts to get a little silly, borderline RPG genre, using rock-paper-scissors with very little individual skill breathing room to break that mold.

It makes the game feel like it forces teamplay in a bad way when it should be encouraged naturally through more interesting designs instead.

Anyhow, not my game, not my decision, just my 2c!

Edited July 24, 2018 by Raap

[OrangeP47]

I'm actually okay with the pistol, it was more the $400 unit should beat the free infantry that I took issue with.  By that logic, 3 rocket troopers should bring down Tanya. I think that, even with a pistol, the rocket trooper should still lose though, consistently.

[Raap]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

I'm actually okay with the pistol, it was more the $400 unit should beat the free infantry that I took issue with.  By that logic, 3 rocket troopers should bring down Tanya. I think that, even with a pistol, the rocket trooper should still lose though, consistently.

The pistol was nowhere near as effective as alternative anti-personnel weaponry, but it was much more usable than hoping that your rocket's or RPG's landed direct hits. This is the point I'm trying to highlight, it feels very weird to be shooting anti-vehicle weaponry at infantry when the game always tells you not to do so, except until now, because these units have no ways to fight besides using a hammer for a delicate task. Anyhow, I said my piece. 

[OrangeP47]

Just now, Raap said:

The pistol was nowhere near as effective as alternative anti-personnel weaponry, but it was much more usable than hoping that your rocket's or RPG's landed direct hits. This is the point I'm trying to highlight, it feels very weird to be shooting anti-vehicle weaponry at infantry when the game always tells you not to do so, except until now, because these units have no ways to fight besides using a hammer for a delicate task. Anyhow, I said my piece. 

I was mostly responding to Raptor not to you anyway btw  

[OWA]

I'm pretty happy with the fact that the RS carries a pistol too. It just seems plausible that he should and it at least offers some level of protection from other infantry classes. In my experience, hard countering really works in RTS games because units are way more expendable, but when those units are players in an FPS, you have to make some compensation and soften the counters a little in order to make the game feel fairer and more fun to play.

[Coolrock]

8 minutes ago, OWA said:

It just seems like the game is becoming more like Battlefield and less like Command & Conquer at that point.

While on the topic of pistols though, give Tanya her second pistol. At least she deserves to have another one 

[Pushwall]

2 minutes ago, Coolrock said:

While on the topic of pistols though, give Tanya her second pistol. At least she deserves to have another one 

I can't even begin to explain the unfeasability of this on this engine. Just be glad her pistol has double the magazine capacity that it has in real life and move on.

[Coolrock]

1 minute ago, Pushwall said:

I can't even begin to explain the unfeasability of this on this engine. Just be glad her pistol has double the magazine capacity that it has in real life and move on.

I was only joking 

[OWA]

17 minutes ago, Coolrock said:

It just seems like the game is becoming more like Battlefield and less like Command & Conquer at that point.

It's a small sacrifice to make for a better gameplay experience imo. The game will never be Battlefield, as much as it was trying so hard to be during the Gamma days.

[Coolrock]

3 minutes ago, OWA said:

It's a small sacrifice to make for a better gameplay experience imo. The game will never be Battlefield, as much as it was trying so hard to be during the Gamma days.

I guess I’m glad I wasn’t around for it 

[Raptor29aa]

To play devil’s advocate here. Wouldn’t it be more realistic for a Rocket Landing less than two meters from a solder to do more than zero damage?

In RA the Rocket soldier still did some damage to infantry (not nearly as much as grenades but that is a topic for another thread). The argument can be made for RS doing increased infantry damage. (But yes I do know the net code for splash damage is bad)

Edited July 24, 2018 by Raptor29aa

[Raap]

6 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

I was mostly responding to Raptor not to you anyway btw  

Consider using quotes then, as you posted below me while commenting on the same subject. 

[OrangeP47]

22 minutes ago, Raap said:

Consider using quotes then, as you posted below me while commenting on the same subject. 

Mostly, not fully

[Pushwall]

7 hours ago, Raptor29aa said:

To play devil’s advocate here. Wouldn’t it be more realistic for a Rocket Landing less than two meters from a solder to do more than zero damage?

In RA the Rocket soldier still did some damage to infantry (not nearly as much as grenades but that is a topic for another thread). The argument can be made for RS doing increased infantry damage. (But yes I do know the net code for splash damage is bad)

This is why I compensated the pistol removal with higher splash damage. The LAW now does almost as much splash DPS as the shock trooper before the shocky's most recent nerf (about 2.6-3.2 per second depending on distance, versus 3.75 per second - shocky now does 2.5). I don't think it can be increased too much more without stepping on the Grenadier's toes (4.6-5.5), though this would be less of an issue if the Allies just didn't have a Grenadier and its Soviet price went down to 160 as suggested by Coolrock, as the LAW's greater ROF means it inherently has more splash DPS than the RPG and therefore even if the rocket splash got buffed again there would still be a bigger gap between the RPG/Grenades.

[FRAYDO]

People, people, the solution is simple. Just give the Rocket Soldier a melee attack. When cornered, he can swing his LAW or RPG at the enemy and hope to knock them out gg

[Coolrock]

While we’re at it, can we give the Thief a hat and sword?

[Pushwall]

1 hour ago, Coolrock said:

While we’re at it, can we give the Thief a hat and sword?

Now that is something I've always wanted to see if only because the current model of "kid who thinks ninjas are cool" is kind of underwhelming. Fat chance of there being any character modellers around to properly accomplish this though, and getting the cape to flow properly with the existing infantry animations would be a challenge - I tested it before using a rudimentary untextured plane and no matter what bones I bound it to it would always look really unnatural or clip through his spine in certain common animations. And it would require thieves to be a little less useless than they are currently (adding a melee weapon isn't good enough). No point going to all this effort to encourage people to use it if it's still shit.

[Raap]

7 hours ago, FRAYDO said:

People, people, the solution is simple. Just give the Rocket Soldier a melee attack. When cornered, he can swing his LAW or RPG at the enemy and hope to knock them out gg

I could live in this world.

[Coolrock]

7 hours ago, Pushwall said:

I’m already on the job, just pressed for time right now. I would personally play an entire game as Zorro, and constantly steal all the Soviets money 

[Cat]

17 hours ago, Coolrock said:

It just seems like the game is becoming more like Battlefield and less like Command & Conquer at that point. 

?

 

I don't see comparing this game to another FPS game being a reason to remove pistols. I was just saying my opinion why I think having pistols are good, but I don't really expect it would change anything and I can still live without them.

[Raap]

Random thought: We will probably always have a discussion that XYZ infantry unit needs XYZ weapon, and that doing so is against RAlism or not doing so is immersion breaking.

What if we can win on multiple fronts with one solution?

What if we added properly randomized crate spawners akin to Red Alert multiplayer/skirmish matches? Not the static spawns we use now in select maps, but countless possible spawning locations of a crate containing non-game breaking PERKS and SECONDARY weaponry?

So this would mean:

- Pistols of different variations, and possible future secondary style weaponry that do not presently fit on a unit loud-out but do fit the RA universe. Weaponry designed to not replace a units primary weapon.

- Perks, special buffs of varying magnitude and varying duration. For example you might loot an Iron Curtain effect that lasts for 5 seconds, or a speed upgrade that lasts for 20 seconds, or a jet-powered-uberkov-jump that lasts for 30 seconds. You name it, as long as the duration is limited, anything becomes easy to balance.

The problem? I'm quite sure we have no code for limited duration power-ups laying around, and the concept of spawning a preset (crate) in a random location also does not exist. But these might be solvable topics - if the idea itself holds merit.

Thoughts?

Edited July 25, 2018 by Raap

[OrangeP47]

Crates could spice up the scenery on a few maps, too.  The maps are great to look around just for fun, but having a crate as a reward for doing so might be nice.  I wouldn't say "random" placement of the crates, but a few known locations per map *could* spawn a crate, not guaranteed, and maybe not every map.

[Raap]

3 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Crates could spice up the scenery on a few maps, too.  The maps are great to look around just for fun, but having a crate as a reward for doing so might be nice.  I wouldn't say "random" placement of the crates, but a few known locations per map *could* spawn a crate, not guaranteed, and maybe not every map.

The only problem I have with crates - dev point of view - is the immense clutter it creates within the tool world view. Perhaps that could be solved in Mammoth via a display toggle though?

Hostile Water's iceberg crates for example create a gigantic web of lines. Now imagine having even more of that in all maps, you'd have a hard time using the editor to see your level, and there would be plenty of issues with object selection as well.

That's why I hoped for something more automated.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Raap

[Raptor29aa]

5 hours ago, Coolrock said:

I’m already on the job, just pressed for time right now. I would personally play an entire game as Zorro, and constantly steal all the Soviets money 

This ^ would be even more awesome than MIGs. Seriously, I would play a thief even if it was just to troll the opposing team. 

I mean if I successfully stole money from my enemy I would run around like zorro shouting “ha HA!” (The spy is a fun troll but this would take it to a new level) And maybe get a few sword kills.

Ok now about the random pistol or power up crate that sounds worth it. Or even limited rifle or grenade or shotgun ammo would be ok too (as long as they aren’t from more than 300$ characters)

[Threve]

On 7/22/2018 at 9:18 AM, Pushwall said:

General

• If you are equipped with a tracking weapon and aim at a vehicle, you will get a lockon marker showing you what part of the vehicle the rocket will try to home in on.

One quick thing Pushwall. Is this animation or lock on marker attached to the HUD or Hud.ini? I am using the old school Beta style HUD instead of the current one and I am not able to see any animation or difference when locking on to a tank. I saw a video earlier where I believe you demonstrated it and a red box appeared while you shot a LAW javelin style, however nothing new happens for me currently.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Threve

[Pushwall]

21 minutes ago, Threve said:

One quick thing Pushwall. Is this animation or lock on marker attached to the HUD or Hud.ini?

Yes it is.

[Threve]

On 7/24/2018 at 1:32 PM, Raap said:

Thing is, from a gameplay point of view it logically makes zero sense to be using an anti-personnel vehicle to deal with the heaviest tank in the game.

But when you have an infantry unit who found enough space on his back for two rocket/RPG launchers, yet somehow didn't think of bringing a basic pistol to deal with very common scenarios, the game starts to get a little silly.

Just git gud. I don't understand why people keep insisting the RPG Trooper to have a pistol still. He is not meant for anti infantry and if you really try you can kill infantry with the LAW itself. The splash damage after this update actually makes it worth while and with the tracking activated you can get a lucky 1 hit kill headshot.

By this logic

- Rangers should have TOW missiles to help deal with Mammoth Tanks.  

- Tanya (a special commando) should have clearing mines with her C4.

- The Longbow and Medium Tank should have a 12.7mm Coaxial Machine Gun.

- Sniper should get a pistol to.

Honestly, I don't get why this is still an argument. If you get into a fight with a captain, Sarge, Volkov or even a Rifle Soldier then it is your fault if you lose. One has a rocket and the other has an Assault Rifle. End of discussion. If you are that worried about dying (Happens in this game sometimes) then get a Ranger with a Rocket Launcher or a Soviet RS with a Mine Layer/Kaptain Backup. 

 

Yes it is.

Thank you

Edited July 31, 2018 by Threve

[FRAYDO]

3 hours ago, Threve said:

Rangers should have TOW missiles to help deal with Mammoth Tanks.