Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

APB 3.0.7.4 Changelog



68 replies to this topic

#1 Pushwall

Pushwall

    RA:APB Lead Developer

  • Staff Moderator
  • 706 posts
  • Ingame Username:Pushwall
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chavenage, Innitland

Posted 08 January 2017 - 11:02 AM

*
POPULAR

:allied:  Red Alert: A Path Beyond Update     :soviet:

There's one day left until the first year anniversary of Delta's initial release, but I was never the type to intentionally delay important things just to have them happen on a date that sounds better. Plus it's not exactly a "megapatch" worthy of that anyway. Since the recent rubberbanding troubles have been so troubling, I wanted to get this patch out as soon as the fix was made. Enjoy!
 

Changelist



GENERAL

  • NetUpdateRate is now set correctly, this should annihilate your rubberbanding problems!
  • Being scoped in when the map ends no longer causes you to stay scoped on the next map.
  • Added engine.cfg override for monitor refresh rate.
  • Added armour bar to HUD target box for any unit that has armour. This should reduce the confusion about inconsistencies in weapon damage.

INFANTRY

  • Infantry armour is now more effective against "weak" explosive splash damage, reducing health damage by 62.5% instead of 50%, and the armour itself is completely immune to this damage. Effectiveness of "strong" explosives (artillery, V2, C4 and hand grenades) is unchanged.

VEHICLES

  • Light Tank, Medium Tank, Heavy Tank, Mammoth Tank can no longer carry passengers.

BUILDINGS

  • Purchase terminal zones now have physical collision, so it is no longer possible to get so close to them that you are unable to use them.
  • Fixed shape of Construction Yard roof VIS sector, should prevent some oddities when camera is over the "arch".
  • Construction Yard second floor has grates beneath the PCTs, so even if the PT zones fail, you should not fall through them when buying stuff.
  • Added blocker behind MCV in non-tunnel version of Construction Yard basement, so it is no longer possible to get stuck behind it.
  • Sub Pen now has mesh fences on the ends of the piers, making it harder for Allied infantry to disembark directly into the pen (but still possible) and harder to fall into the water while trying to defend against navy as an RPG/Volkov.
  • Naval Yard now uses the same mesh fencing as the Sub Pen.
  • Collision plane on Allied Barracks basement stairway now properly connects to the lower floor; this means that infantry descending the stairs will no longer "fall" and get accuracy penalties as a result.

AESTHETICS

  • Added Kaskins' Imperial Age bullet tracers with his permission, to replace the outdated and broken emitter-based tracers.
  • Weather particles no longer fall through water; this also allows us to add weather back to naval maps that previously had it at some point.

MAPS

RA_HostileWaters:

  • Added light snowfall.
  • Fixed water brightness.
  • Water now fades at shorelines.

RA_Siege:

  • Fixed water brightness.
  • EVA now reminds you about the cannon side objective every so often.
  • Cannons now repair at half the previous rate and take 25% more damage from Hinds.
  • Cannons now use the same radar marker as base defenses.
  • Added collision planes to the landing pads, so ground vehicles should not get stuck on them and infantry walking onto them should not "fall".
  • Fixed a bad texture blend on the hills behind Soviet base.

RA_Under:

  • Added snowfall.
  • Parts of the Soviet Radar Dome are no longer untargetable.


#2 FRAYDO

FRAYDO

    PR Train Conductor

  • W3D Hub Staff
  • 644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS, BABY!

Posted 08 January 2017 - 07:20 PM

AESTHETICS

  • Added Kaskins' Imperial Age bullet tracers with his permission, to replace the outdated and broken emitter-based tracers.

Gotta have my  a e s t h e t i c s

 

But seriously, thank you Kaskins for this!



#3 NodGuy

NodGuy

    Technician

  • Testers
  • 153 posts
  • Ingame Username:NodGuy
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 08 January 2017 - 07:58 PM

Awesomesauce.



#4 Raap

Raap

    Fan Mapper

  • Members
  • 635 posts
  • Ingame Username:Raap
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 08 January 2017 - 08:07 PM

That updated water effect still isn't quite the same as what I used in my in-dev version, but it'll do. :)

 

A new minor Siege bug surfaced in this build: The destroyed scaffolding has persisting smoke emitters, while previously they did not. Said smoke emitter is placed at the "destroyed" model's origin position, which means it is floating in the air in-game. Previously, smoke would only trail behind the destruction animation, which lasts about 8 or so seconds. Did you touch these W3D files? If not, then something might be broken in the used scripts... Don't try to re-set those scripts however, it's a messy and undocumented maze of scripts and parameters (note for future LE iteration: script editor documentation space per preset, so other/future project team members can figure out why things are done).



#5 Pushwall

Pushwall

    RA:APB Lead Developer

  • Staff Moderator
  • 706 posts
  • Ingame Username:Pushwall
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chavenage, Innitland

Posted 09 January 2017 - 05:36 AM

I haven't touched the scaffolding w3ds or presets so I don't know what's up there. e_turretsmoke1 has always been a "permanent" emitter though...



#6 Raap

Raap

    Fan Mapper

  • Members
  • 635 posts
  • Ingame Username:Raap
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 09 January 2017 - 07:24 AM

I haven't touched the scaffolding w3ds or presets so I don't know what's up there. e_turretsmoke1 has always been a "permanent" emitter though...

 

Something certainly changed. I know the emitter is "permanent", but the animation that it was originally part of only lasted about 8 seconds, then a model (preset) swap occurs that changes the destroyed parts into a less demanding static model, without any emitters.

 

So it seems the effect is remaining for some reason. Perhaps it wasn't caused in this patch, but it certainly did not occur in my personal in-dev version... But we now both know that our development environments are different in a number of aspects (see the black water issue, that I could not create using the same files). Quite possibly this is just another side effect of not using the same environment or even tools.


Edited by Raap, 09 January 2017 - 07:27 AM.


#7 Pushwall

Pushwall

    RA:APB Lead Developer

  • Staff Moderator
  • 706 posts
  • Ingame Username:Pushwall
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chavenage, Innitland

Posted 09 January 2017 - 09:53 AM

Actually it's not related to different development environments at all. Check your PMs, I don't think anyone else here wants to gaze into the abyss that is the bridge code :p



#8 Willy

Willy

    Civilian

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Ingame Username:Willy

Posted 09 January 2017 - 10:36 AM

My biggest concern with this update is the removal of the carpooling ability for MBTs.

 

Think of the children  memes   environment! What about all the CO2 we could have saved by driving more than 1 man per vehicle?

 

Now people are going to want a tank for themself!

 

 

Disclaimer: All the above is bullshit, and it seems like a great minipatch :)



#9 SilverShark

SilverShark

    Technician

  • Members
  • 51 posts
  • Ingame Username:Totd
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 03:12 PM

I'm also concerned about the change to MBTs.

 

Whose Medium Tank are those mechanics going to hitch a ride on now?



#10 Pushwall

Pushwall

    RA:APB Lead Developer

  • Staff Moderator
  • 706 posts
  • Ingame Username:Pushwall
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chavenage, Innitland

Posted 09 January 2017 - 03:19 PM

You weren't concerned enough to vote in the thread about it apparently.

 

This is what APCs, minelayers, rangers, and supply trucks (both buyable and field spawns) are for. If the Alliederps decide they should get nothing but medium tanks and kill any supply trucks they find because muh recs, that's their problem.

 

I thought you of all people would be jumping for joy because it also means more infantry are in a position to be sniped.

 

Don't forget that this inhibits shock trooper/volkov hitchhiking as well.



#11 dblaney1

dblaney1

    Technician

  • Imperial Age Staff
  • 72 posts
  • Ingame Username:dblaney1
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 03:43 PM

Its kind of weird that the light tank (m2 bradley) can't carry passengers despite the fact that in real life it is an IFV lol.



#12 SilverShark

SilverShark

    Technician

  • Members
  • 51 posts
  • Ingame Username:Totd
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2017 - 04:10 PM

Its kind of weird that the light tank (m2 bradley) can't carry passengers despite the fact that in real life it is an IFV lol.

It's a M24 Chaffee here.


  • Ice likes this

#13 FRAYDO

FRAYDO

    PR Train Conductor

  • W3D Hub Staff
  • 644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS, BABY!

Posted 09 January 2017 - 04:14 PM

I voted to keep MBT passenger capability, as well as providing my reasoning, but the votes are there. :)


Its kind of weird that the light tank (m2 bradley) can't carry passengers despite the fact that in real life it is an IFV lol.

It's a M24 Chaffee here.


M24 Chaffee for life. My choice of tank, APB and WOT.

#14 Ice

Ice

    Lifetime RA-lism Advocate

  • Members
  • 94 posts
  • Ingame Username:ICE
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 09 January 2017 - 11:00 PM

 

Its kind of weird that the light tank (m2 bradley) can't carry passengers despite the fact that in real life it is an IFV lol.

It's a M24 Chaffee here.

 

Indeed. The Bradley was a Tib Dawn era vehicle and was used by Nod, not the Allies.



#15 dblaney1

dblaney1

    Technician

  • Imperial Age Staff
  • 72 posts
  • Ingame Username:dblaney1
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2017 - 02:40 PM

Oops lol. And I just was in APB the other day. Too many mods to remember lol.



#16 Willy

Willy

    Civilian

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Ingame Username:Willy

Posted 10 January 2017 - 03:20 PM

You weren't concerned enough to vote in the thread about it apparently.

 

This is what APCs, minelayers, rangers, and supply trucks (both buyable and field spawns) are for. If the Alliederps decide they should get nothing but medium tanks and kill any supply trucks they find because muh reccomendations, that's their problem.

 

I thought you of all people would be jumping for joy because it also means more infantry are in a position to be sniped.

 

Don't forget that this inhibits shock trooper/volkov hitchhiking as well.

 

 

I figure that wasn't aimed for me.
 

I approve of this change because I see it as where you could do something like filling a few Mammoths up with Volkovs, and then let the passengers get dropped off to mess with internal repair efforts, you now have to either get more tanks to achieve same distance driven in tanks, or you have to coordinate with your team.

 

My only real complaint would be that you have to coordinate, but then again, it IS a team game after all. :).

 

Any case, the votes are in, the changes are implemented, lets see how it works out.

 

If it turns out that we get kicked in the nuts, cancer or something other unfortunate related to the MBT changes, well, I suppose its easier to reverse the changes than unkick a groin.



#17 Pushwall

Pushwall

    RA:APB Lead Developer

  • Staff Moderator
  • 706 posts
  • Ingame Username:Pushwall
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chavenage, Innitland

Posted 10 January 2017 - 03:22 PM

Yeah that was for SilverShark.



#18 JigglyJie

JigglyJie

    Civilian

  • Members
  • 37 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Norwich, UK

Posted 10 January 2017 - 03:37 PM

I'm largely on the fence about this change. Whilst I saw the problem, it does penalise slower infantry out in the field, particularly when you are further away from a neutral track or from your base. I can see this change also leading to the destruction or even camping of these supply trucks from now on.

 

Could it be possible, at least for larger maps to include a third neutral truck so that slower infantry stand more of a chance being able to survive? Personally I have been trying several times to bring a supply truck whenever a large force is about to assault the enemy base. Either way, it's too early to tell yet.



#19 Einstein

Einstein

    Cruiser Captain

  • Staff Moderator
  • 1,814 posts
  • Ingame Username:Einstein
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mississippi, USA

Posted 10 January 2017 - 03:43 PM

I'm on the fence as well. There are great reasons on both sides from what I see. I wonder though if there could be a compromise if it turns out that too many people hate this change. What if there was a passenger timer of sorts? You can't ride in the mammy the whole way to the enemy base but you could ride for say....15-30 seconds at a time with a 15 second cooldown timer before it will let you enter that vehicle as a passenger again? That way if you NEEDED to jump in someone's vehicle to avoid dying outside, you could! Just not permanently. Might be a little overkill for a solution, idk. Discuss :v



#20 Pushwall

Pushwall

    RA:APB Lead Developer

  • Staff Moderator
  • 706 posts
  • Ingame Username:Pushwall
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chavenage, Innitland

Posted 10 January 2017 - 03:59 PM

Could it be possible, at least for larger maps to include a third neutral truck so that slower infantry stand more of a chance being able to survive? Personally I have been trying several times to bring a supply truck whenever a large force is about to assault the enemy base. Either way, it's too early to tell yet.

 
Know of any places to put them? Pretty much every landmark on large maps that's at a roughly equal distance between both bases (so it's not a clear advantage to one team or the other) already has either a supply truck, cargo truck or mobile AA gun, except for Siege (I should probably put a truck or two on that map) and they all respawn on a 30 second timer.

 

And as I mentioned in the thread, you also have the option of using a minelayer for 2-man transport - a no-brainer for Allies to bring to the field since that's where you want to lay mines, and not a bad option for Soviets either if you can pin down any places in the field that Allied snipers/rockets like to strike from. Or places you want your infantry to strike from while being safe from Tanyas. And rangers and APCs for the Allies, so if they have at least one of those in the field, taxiing should not be an issue for them.
 

 

 
Sounds like a delightfully obtuse gameplay mechanic that will just confuse everyone who hasn't read this thread.


Alternatively we can just bump the sprinting speed up a notch.



#21 dblaney1

dblaney1

    Technician

  • Imperial Age Staff
  • 72 posts
  • Ingame Username:dblaney1
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:06 PM

Yeah I am not a fan of changes that actually reduce the ability to perform teamwork. That's actually one of the reasons why I liked the stock renegade engineer/technician game mechanics. It encouraged teammates to work as a team. I liked the fact that the vehicle/building/infantry repair was all rolled into one unit. It was a necessary change in my opinion since one player can't control 100's of units like in the RTS. 



#22 Pushwall

Pushwall

    RA:APB Lead Developer

  • Staff Moderator
  • 706 posts
  • Ingame Username:Pushwall
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chavenage, Innitland

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:14 PM

stock renegade engineer/technician game mechanics. It encouraged teammates to work as a team.

 

And both teams were almost identical, with the only truly noteworthy differences being that one team gets a stealth tank/stealth infantry while the other gets a big points sponge and a better rocket soldier. Not the most interesting dichotomy. If we make technicians/engineers into omnirepairmedics here then that means we basically have to rebalance the game from scratch again because the unit balance is currently built around only one team being able to repair tanks in the field and heal infantry in the midst of a firefight. And it'll likely boil down to both teams becoming identical again save for availability of phase tanks/mammoth tanks and become a Renegade clone and that's not what this is supposed to be.



#23 JigglyJie

JigglyJie

    Civilian

  • Members
  • 37 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Norwich, UK

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:39 PM

 

Know of any places to put them? Pretty much every landmark on large maps that's at a roughly equal distance between both bases

The battlefield is a warzone, so that argument doesn't really hold, it's likely that you'd find such assets lying about wherever. Plus I did say for the larger maps, KOTG is a prime example where there's plenty of neglected spaces and just general emptiness. Same for Pipeline and RidgeWar especially. I really have a difficult time in understanding at where the positioning of a neutral supply truck would in anyway affect the balance (granted they're not obviously in or just outside your base). In fact, even if that was the case, I'd make them first spawn in as partially damaged to emphasis that again, it's a warzone.



#24 dblaney1

dblaney1

    Technician

  • Imperial Age Staff
  • 72 posts
  • Ingame Username:dblaney1
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:40 PM

 

stock renegade engineer/technician game mechanics. It encouraged teammates to work as a team.

 

And both teams were almost identical, with the only truly noteworthy differences being that one team gets a stealth tank/stealth infantry while the other gets a big points sponge and a better rocket soldier. Not the most interesting dichotomy. If we make technicians/engineers into omnirepairmedics here then that means we basically have to rebalance the game from scratch again because the unit balance is currently built around only one team being able to repair tanks in the field and heal infantry in the midst of a firefight. And it'll likely boil down to both teams becoming identical again save for availability of phase tanks/mammoth tanks and become a Renegade clone and that's not what this is supposed to be.

 

 

The points bug regarding the Mammoth is fixed actually in scripts 4.x. That was an unintentional points calculation error that westwood made.



#25 Pushwall

Pushwall

    RA:APB Lead Developer

  • Staff Moderator
  • 706 posts
  • Ingame Username:Pushwall
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chavenage, Innitland

Posted 10 January 2017 - 05:08 PM

The battlefield is a warzone, so that argument doesn't really hold, it's likely that you'd find such assets lying about wherever.

 
Fair enough. I'd rather not have them in a position where they'd get in the way of tanks and therefore encourage them to blow them up though, so that still limits their placement a little.
 
KOTG: The big northeastern plateau of nothing (i.e. the opposite side of the map from the house), or possibly the gem field.
Pipeline: The shack by the central oil derrick, or possibly expand the nearby partisan cave to have shelter for a truck?
Ridge War: Central bunker (between the heavy/mammy corpses), or possibly the far west map boundary.

Siege: Anywhere around the castle courtyard. Possibly two, one on each "side".
 
I thematically like the idea of having them be damaged. Many of the supply truck spawns are around ruins anyway. It might inhibit their use a bit though, making them less likely to reach their destination if attacked. So if I were to do this I'd have it be random and only down to 180/250 health (i.e. just enough for them to start smoking)



#26 Raap

Raap

    Fan Mapper

  • Members
  • 635 posts
  • Ingame Username:Raap
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:01 PM

(...) has either a supply truck, cargo truck or mobile AA gun, except for Siege (I should probably put a truck or two on that map) and they all respawn on a 30 second timer.

 
Fun fact for those who forgotten about it; The original Mobile AA Gun vehicle (not the current re-rig) was a neutral capturable vehicle (3 of them) in Siege's 2008 QA iteration. For this reason I toyed with the Soviet counterpart, a Mobile SAM Launcher, in the Siege development thread. 
 
I axed the Mobile SAM Launcher but if a desire for it exists I can certainly finish the model/rigging/presets, then Pushwall would have two anti-air vehicles to throw into various maps, which is a little more worthwhile than generic Supply Trucks.
 
Edit: Referring to this 30 minute duct-tape job. If given more time, I could do a lot more with it of course.
 
Spoiler



Edit2: FYI there is actually already a vehicle hidden somewhere in Siege, I figured I'd drop that hint now since nobody figured that one out yet... And some people kept telling me players find all secrets in less than 24 hours, hah!

Edited by Raap, 10 January 2017 - 06:10 PM.


#27 Einstein

Einstein

    Cruiser Captain

  • Staff Moderator
  • 1,814 posts
  • Ingame Username:Einstein
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mississippi, USA

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:25 PM

Let the duct tape flow.



#28 moonsense715

moonsense715

    RA2:AR Co-Producer

  • Admin
  • 4,553 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central Europe GMT+1 hour

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:59 PM

Yeah I am not a fan of changes that actually reduce the ability to perform teamwork. That's actually one of the reasons why I liked the stock renegade engineer/technician game mechanics. It encouraged teammates to work as a team. I liked the fact that the vehicle/building/infantry repair was all rolled into one unit. It was a necessary change in my opinion since one player can't control 100's of units like in the RTS.

A lot of players flowed from Renegade to APB back in 2005-2007 because it was so different. Renegade's team cooperation was most often forced as the maps were very small (except for a few) and on a lot of maps you have always just seen advance wars gameplay (whoever controlled the field usually won).
APB changes that with bigger maps and the "not everyone can repair vehicles anywhere for free".

#29 ChopBam

ChopBam

    Tunnel Snake

  • Staff Moderator
  • 1,744 posts
  • Ingame Username:ChopBam
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Bunny eating BLT Sandwich

Posted 10 January 2017 - 07:11 PM

A lot of players flowed from Renegade to APB back in 2005-2007 because it was so different. Renegade's team cooperation was most often forced as the maps were very small (except for a few) and on a lot of maps you have always just seen advance wars gameplay (whoever controlled the field usually won).
APB changes that with bigger maps and the "not everyone can repair vehicles anywhere for free".

To add onto this, Renegade had a lot of box canyon maps with few routes for actual strategy, so the gameplay ended up being a lot of meatgrinder gameplay with people sitting in the same place and shooting/repairing the whole round.

#30 Pushwall

Pushwall

    RA:APB Lead Developer

  • Staff Moderator
  • 706 posts
  • Ingame Username:Pushwall
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chavenage, Innitland

Posted 10 January 2017 - 08:28 PM

Edit2: FYI there is actually already a vehicle hidden somewhere in Siege,

 

And you know just as well as I do that it's useless for what we're talking about and shouldn't count :v







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: patch

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users