Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pushwall

APB 3.2.4.0 Changelog

Recommended Posts

Wait I thought the supply freighter was the cruiser spawn placeholder considering it’s the entire length of the Adv Naval Yard. My logical guess is it would be scaled down to the length of a gunboat + destroyer. (Let’s face it the current NY would look silly to have a huge boat pop up out of nowhere and slay all the subs and boats in its spawn path like the claw of Archimedes). also I figured you guys would use some sort of cinematography magic in both the boats spawn and in its firing by adding big muzzle flashes to hide the actual spawn of the projectiles and keep the projectiles rather small to hide the mammoth tank double barrel logic, but add the whistling effect of two artillery shells, which would mean they would spawn farther away from the boat be very inaccurate and be incapable of hitting anything infront of their nose. But then I imagine you guys saying they aren’t supposed to hit subs or close range targets. Lastly I can fancy that complaints will come from those who complain the big target will be too easy to V2 snipe or too hard to maneuver, and at that point in time I can see pushwall saying “teamwork, the cruiser needs an escort like the mad tank.” But in private saying wow some people need to get over it.

Anyways, I didn’t really like the freighter but thought it served a purpose beyond being part of the Adv.NY, but maybe I was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 4:27 PM, Raptor29aa said:

Wait I thought the supply freighter was the cruiser spawn placeholder considering it’s the entire length of the Adv Naval Yard. My logical guess is it would be scaled down to the length of a gunboat + destroyer.

The supply freighter is actually about 2/3rds to 3/4 of the length of the ANY I'd say. The Cruiser placeholder on Seamist - effectively a +40% scale destroyer - is about a couple metres shorter than the length of the ANY too, so it shouldn't be a problem to spawn cruisers in place of that freighter.

On 8/8/2018 at 4:27 PM, Raptor29aa said:

 Lastly I can fancy that complaints will come from those who complain the big target will be too easy to V2 snipe or too hard to maneuver, and at that point in time I can see pushwall saying “teamwork, the cruiser needs an escort like the mad tank.” But in private saying wow some people need to get over it.

Teamwork in a different way. The current plans for the cruiser involve it being a 2-man vehicle; the pilot controls the front guns and the passenger controls the rear guns. So if people don't want to maneuver multiple of these titans around each other, they should share :p As for V2s the cruiser should be able to outrange them easily in direct combat - though when it comes to hitting inland buildings it may need to expose itself to V2s but it can still fire back at them. It's air and subs it really wouldn't have much of a response to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys remember the old Aftermath mission where you had to hop from island to island with 2 Chronotanks to take out the SAMs? I feel like that when I play the Chronotank these days. Great job dev team!

If only Shallow Grave is back, then we can get the CT onto the center island!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, des1206 said:

If only Shallow Grave is back, then we can get the CT onto the center island!

I'd kill to see Shallow Grave remade. Especially if it had the song Journey playing throughout it. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More like Shallow Gameplay.

It was the most one dimensional level of older APB iterations. If you thought Siege was repetitive now, then clearly your memory of SG is tainted by rose tinted glasses.

SG was a circle, literally just a circle, two simple lanes that were always in perfect view of each other, making attacks visible while they were forming up in bases, and with simply no flanking opportunities what so ever.

It would need a complete re-design, at which point it would be a different level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Alpine lake would be remade long before shallow grave. Except with Yaks.

Edited by Raptor29aa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raap said:

SG was a circle, literally just a circle, two simple lanes that were always in perfect view of each other, making attacks visible while they were forming up in bases, and with simply no flanking opportunities what so ever.

But... what if that's the reason I loved Shallow Grave? Seriously. I have old footage that I have that I watch of Shallow Grave (and Volcano) and I even enjoy watching it. I really can't explain why. I know it's not 'nostalgia' or 'rose tinted glasses' because I have a good memory and remember enjoying those maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great update. I really love the MRJ being 600 dollars again ^ ^

14 hours ago, des1206 said:

You guys remember the old Aftermath mission where you had to hop from island to island with 2 Chronotanks to take out the SAMs? I feel like that when I play the Chronotank these days. Great job dev team!

Good memories in the good old days... My my Time Flies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NodGuy said:

But... what if that's the reason I loved Shallow Grave? Seriously. I have old footage that I have that I watch of Shallow Grave (and Volcano) and I even enjoy watching it. I really can't explain why. I know it's not 'nostalgia' or 'rose tinted glasses' because I have a good memory and remember enjoying those maps.

Volcano was a fun map, the terrain was so bumpy and treeless it was awesome! I enjoyed the tank on tank combat on that terrain. it was hard to aim a V2 or arty on that terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raptor29aa said:

Volcano was a fun map, the terrain was so bumpy and treeless it was awesome! I enjoyed the tank on tank combat on that terrain. it was hard to aim a V2 or arty on that terrain.

Yeah and I remember Light Tanks being able to climb any angle too. Good times. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raptor29aa said:

Volcano was a fun map, the terrain was so bumpy and treeless it was awesome! I enjoyed the tank on tank combat on that terrain. it was hard to aim a V2 or arty on that terrain.

That reminds me of this thing I had to cancel because of graphical inconsistencies in-game; https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7fULGRONJ7dbTg1VUl5UmdERTA

Run it in W3D viewer and kill scene light for night time INTENDED appearance (in-game it is just an orange glow-plane unfortunately).

 

Edit: My current and latest W3D Viewer also doesn't render it correctly.

Edited by Raap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2018 at 9:17 PM, Raap said:

More like Shallow Gameplay.

It was the most one dimensional level of older APB iterations. If you thought Siege was repetitive now, then clearly your memory of SG is tainted by rose tinted glasses.

SG was a circle, literally just a circle, two simple lanes that were always in perfect view of each other, making attacks visible while they were forming up in bases.

No different than RA_RiverRaid.Mix which people still seem to enjoy. RiverRaid you do get some cover and such but honestly it’s the same concept. I’d like to think if memory serves me correctly SG was just a tech 5 version of River Raid honestly. 

On a related note and serious question, why did RA_Volcano ever get removed? That map was incredible with stealthy/lucky demos, Tanya rushes and incredible helicopter battles. It was pretty fairly balanced to if I remember. I had no preference for team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Threve said:

No different than RA_RiverRaid.Mix which people still seem to enjoy. RiverRaid you do get some cover and such but honestly it’s the same concept. I’d like to think if memory serves me correctly SG was just a tech 5 version of River Raid honestly. 

On a related note and serious question, why did RA_Volcano ever get removed? That map was incredible with stealthy/lucky demos, Tanya rushes and incredible helicopter battles. It was pretty fairly balanced to if I remember. I had no preference for team. 

Difference with all those maps and Shallow Grave is that you can still attack the enemy. What do you do if you attack on lane A and the enemy uses lane B? You can see each other from across the map and end up having to make this constant awkward decision of driving back to defend or not, so it ends up with a lot of driving and not much fighting. Additionally, it is a War Factory dependent map. Losing it means you have to walk all the way around the puddle of water in the middle, which in a sense makes it comparable to having to play Siege without access to vehicles, but worse, as most of the map provides no infantry cover or passages (unless those were added).

The map could work but it would have to have a scale reduction and a lot of more interesting terrain, essentially it needs to be remade from scratch and by the end of that process it would not look like SG any longer regardless. ?

And I'd like to think the reasons for the Volcano removal were the fact that it was just a heightfield-type level with a few objects tossed onto it, and you know, the lack of an actual volcano. The hill with a darker patch of grass on top really did not count.

Anyhow, it is up to Pushwall to decide what goes into the game. I personally just think there are more interesting things on the list!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Threve said:

On a related note and serious question, why did RA_Volcano ever get removed?

Why do people keep assuming levels got "removed" and not that, in between real life and all my other work on this game, I did not have time to take every single old level imaginable, fix their perceived problems, bring their visuals up to par and then add VIS - because even maps like Hostile Waters that only have 3 small areas containing props/trees can suffer framerate issues simply because buildings are the biggest framerate killer? Bear in mind that I am having to do almost all of this myself.

Raap pretty much hit the nail on the head, Volcano is one of the hardest maps to make look good (an issue to which I just said "fuck it" for Metro since so many people wanted it to return but we also lacked any assets that could possibly make it look good - now A Path Beyond on the other hand, I actually want to see that map done justice) so since the only other mapper was doing big, glamorous projects that he didn't have much free time for, I put my time into other, easier projects so that we could actually have a decent number of maps, 16, in the initial release, and actually deliver said initial release before interest in the game died out.

The only levels that legit got "removed" are Hourglass, DM_Killfields, CTT_Luna, and Fissure. Hourglass was the only AOW map in all of Gamma that I actually hated (as opposed to just hating Gamma's unit balance/game mechanics) and I am definitely not alone on that, its layout makes it completely unsalvageable. Killfields is your typical no-barracks DM dreg with no strings attached, which almost everyone seems to want to skip, so why bother reviving it? Luna is in a similar boat minus the "no strings attached", but those strings would not have played well in Delta due to inf combat being redone to discourage jumping, and it's kind of obsolete now with Lunar Paradox anyway. And Fissure, again, suffers from a layout that simply does not gel well with this engine's infantry combat mechanics. When I have the time, or maybe more mappers step up and stop expecting me to revive another 15 or so old maps all by myself in a reasonable time frame? Sure you'll see other old maps return.

3 hours ago, Raap said:

Difference with all those maps and Shallow Grave is that you can still attack the enemy. What do you do if you attack on lane A and the enemy uses lane B? You can see each other from across the map and end up having to make this constant awkward decision of driving back to defend or not, so it ends up with a lot of driving and not much fighting.

What about Pacific Threat then? Pacific Threat is basically an inverse Shallow Grave - water everywhere except a small island in the middle - and it doesn't seem to suffer this problem despite having longer naval base-to-base travel times than CI/Under. Fog, draw distance, and subs diving means the two lanes can't see each other, sure, but there are always other people scouting who report subs inc or boats inc wherever and this doesn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you see the enemy forces, or get a team report of enemy forces using the opposite side of the map on for example Pacific Threat, you can drop your current activity and traverse directly to that enemy group unless they are naval units hugging the map border.

This is my problem with SG. You will ALWAYS see the enemy activities, and you will NEVER be able to directly engage them unless you either drive through their base or all the way back through yours. Adding air units to "remedy" the attacking portion will result in air units dominating everything people do, and naval units would not work because for naval gameplay to function you need a sizable body of water, which means you need to make the map big - which in turn means losing vehicle access is a death sentence. 

It is a circle, this cannot work. At least half the matches will end within 5 minutes because both teams race using a different lane and attempt to blow up the opposing base faster then the other team - specifically the War Factories.

But one way that you could redeem it, at least in part, is by not making it a circle, but instead a figure 8 design; Two bases north and south with naval play, with a central segment comparable to a piece of cheese; Lots of submarine firing holes, but everything can traverse over it. Essentially very comparable to Pacific Threat but with the bases and lanes more directly facing each other. I'd personally make this center segment something industrial to set it apart from Pacific Threat.

But then you get to my other point; So much changes go into this design that it won't be the same level anymore.

That said if there is interest in such a figure 8 type of naval map then perhaps I could put it on my list after the desert map but please keep in mind that the desert map is a project far from completion due to technical issues with 3DS Max (which will affect any level project I work on including a new level). Maybe @ChopBam can find the time for something of this nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why not add something that the original Shallow Grave didn't? Say, something like defenses and walls?  Perhaps even a Gap generator and/or Coil or two to help with the defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started working on the Shallow Grave remake a while ago. I plan to add ridges so not everything will be so visible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pushwall said:

And Fissure, again, suffers from a layout that simply does not gel well with this engine's infantry combat mechanics. When I have the time, or maybe more mappers step up and stop expecting me to revive another 15 or so old maps all by myself in a reasonable time frame?

Fissure was before infantry could sprint (Now there are way too many instances of CQC)

But yea I am going to step up (again with a new computer this time) and start small. I will design an infantry only map based off of a joke Zunie once said "Wouldn't it be cool to kick a player off a mountain." Then he went on for a while on how it was impossible to create hand to hand combat and knock back. So I will just create a mountain map. with gems in the middle (as so to answer the question why the allies and soviets would fight over a mountain peak). I will do a more formal post once I get this idea fully baked. (and yes volkovs will die too from falling... maybe I'll have to learn how to create a death zone... also I know next to nothing about scripts in LE... who knows maybe it will be the next christmas map).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Raptor29aa said:

Fissure was before infantry could sprint (Now there are way too many instances of CQC)

The problem went far beyond just sprinting. Close quarters, extreme verticality, and splash damage is a combination which leads to grenadiers and flamethrowers being unstoppable. Tunnels that are barely wide enough to fit one infantryman pose the same problem. Then there's the economy. Both sets of silos were in places that were impossible to defend. One silo was very hard to find because the tunnel system was needlessly complicated, and the other silo was out of repair reach. So one or both teams inevitably lose all silo income after about 2 minutes, which might not be the worst thing if it weren't for the fact that anyone able to pony up the cash for a gren or flamer is going to keep it for the rest of the match while Allies can't hold onto any purchased infantry unless they just camp in their barracks with the help of a medic and hope that some gren/flamer decides to brainfart and go inside instead of just pointwhoring the bar from outside and flamers killwhoring from outside with splash penetration. And the new anti-refill measures, while they do solve one problem with the map design (it was too easy to just duck back into your barracks in combat and refill), they create a much bigger one (if multiple flamers splash the right spots on the exterior then Allies just can't buy or refill ever again... a problem that other barracks-only maps don't suffer from because on others it's impossible for flamers to get the required coverage to deny more than 1 PT zone at a time and they'd have to be taking positions that allow Allies to actually fire back at them anyway).

So how to deal with this?

Nerf grens/flamers? Well, the consensus seems to be that on other maps grens/flamers are already mediocre units that could use some help, so nerfing them is definitely not on the cards. Units available on 20+ maps should be viable on more than 1 of them.

Remove grens/flamers from the map? Then Soviets have lost about half their arsenal (because you're not going to be pouring money into "no longer hitscan flamethrowers that also murder vehicles" shocks on an inf map and you're never going to get the money for Volkov). And you'd have to remove medics too because, while flamer corner-peek spam laughs all over medic healing in such close quarters, medic healing laughs all over standard infantry when flamers are out of the equation.

Remove the upper path? Then there's not enough paths and the silos on that path would need a new home.

Remake the tunnels to be more spacious like Rock Trap's? That's an awful lot of map to be redoing, might as well remake the whole damn thing from scratch, especially since the tunnels are not the only problem. But I'm really not up to that right now either. The map concept just has too many problems for this engine's infantry combat and this game's infantry balance. So it's gone and has a very, very low chance of returning (but still higher than Hourglass I guess).

The path I took for the larger part of Delta that the map still existed in, involved flamethrowers having an increased price on this map only, and Allies having access to thieves which they didn't have before - also at an inflated price. On top of being a really tacky solution, it really wasn't much of a solution - it just became even more of a map of extremes (but at least one in which Allies' options were less screwed than before). Get thieves asap and zerg down the silo that they can reach before Soviets can get back to the bar to spend their money on flamers? Soviets die. If the thieves fail or Soviets spend their money at the right time? Allies die, just a slightly slower death than they normally would due to dealing with a smaller number of unstoppable flamers at first before silo income (if it's still up) and/or combat credits + donations let more people hop on the flamer bandwagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 5:11 PM, Raap said:

I think you mean the buildings?

Select "single player" on the W3DHub launcher, then go to Skirmish. Set up a match using the map "RA_HostileWaters" and you can explore this map solo (there are no AI units for this map).

---

SIDE NOTE: Ain't it about time we filter out the RA_ prefixes from the level selection and ending score screens to instead refer to a proper string with the proper map name, like "Sea Mist" instead of "RA_AS_Seamist" (new players don't know what all this prefix stuff is about plus we pretty much decided to can assault maps a decade ago, and recent discussions also concluded to stop [significant] core gameplay deviation anyway).

Thanks, i tried it and i liked it very much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...