• Announcements

    • FRAYDO

      W3D Hub Discord   02/22/2017

      Join us on our Discord server! Everyone is welcome in. Chat with us, organise games, and connect within our community. Click on the Discord image above for the invite! Or get it here! See you in the server!


Staff Moderator
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Pushwall

  • Rank
    RA:APB Lead Developer
  • Birthday 06/05/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Chavenage, Innitland
  • Ingame Username
  • Icon

Contact Methods

  • Steam
  • Skype

Recent Profile Visitors

16,668 profile views
  1. Well technically you can but then you have to deal with the possibility that players might be moving through the recently unblocked area at the time. So yeah you shouldn't. Maybe adding/removing blockades (and also base defenses!) would go over better in TSR since they have a much smaller number of maps - with APB, having 6 of the 23 maps not appear in rotation below a certain player count and having another 6 not appear above that same count, that's still 17 maps that can be in rotation at a time and 11 that are always around no matter how few or how many players are around. Whereas TSR has a small enough number of maps that you can't remove many from rotation before things get stale. But frankly I think the TSR team doesn't want to delay the next release any more than they have to; if they take it into consideration it probably won't happen right away. We already have scripts to toggle map content based on player count (last time we covered this, they weren't around) - APB uses them on Antlion and Seamist to control how many ants or starting vehicles spawn, and I may add them to more maps to remove base defenses. So if the TSR team wants to go the "block/reveal certain map lanes" or "add/remove base defenses" routes those are entirely plausible.
  2. Wouldn't the "have map size match player count" system render voting redundant...? APB had a similar system in place a few months ago, but instead of us making differently sized versions of every map (you do realise that would be a huge timesink right?) and having those swap in/out of rotation based on playercount, we just had the very small/very large maps leave the rotation entirely when it was appropriate. However there were crippling bugs with this system - I don't remember what they were exactly - and Silverlight had to disable it. I've asked him to look into remaking the plugin again recently; when we get it working, TSR/AR/etc should easily be able to use it as well.
  3. I might as well return to my original avatar too.
  4. An "average MVPs" scaled by game count would basically be the same thing as total MVPs. I like the idea but not sure of a good way for scaling to weed out "1 game 1 MVP" types.
  5. The RPG has a terrible splash damage and splash radius (it's an anti-armour weapon, it's not meant for this), plus the Engineer has bonus resistance against explosions, and that one probably had some armour left (it's very likely as it's pretty hard for lower skilled players to stay alive long enough to get several health regens off on that map). Judging from the distance of those explosions and all the resistances stacked against you, you were probably getting about 2-3 points of damage per RPG explosion, compared to the 7.5 of the initial grenade explosion. I don't know if that footage was shot after the latest patch or not but that's caused explosion damage to drop by another 25% against infantry with armour left (except explosions caused by C4, flame/tesla weaponry, artillery/V2 and grenades). The RPG's potential maximum splash damage is 17.5, but that assumes a direct hit (or what the server believes to be a direct hit, as can be seen in that earlier APB Madness video where your rocket barely missed someone and exploded well outside the blast radius, but still did splash damage to them. A between-the-feet hit is not "direct" enough and knocks about 20% off this) against an armour-less infantry that isn't an Engineer. And with an actual direct hit, the rocket itself is delivering the brunt of the damage anyway
  6. Or go to wherever your Documents folder is, then Documents\W3D Hub\games\apb-release\debug. There should be a file named crashdump<numbers>.dmp, or multiple if you've had multiple "Renegade has encountered an internal error" issues. Zip the latest one and upload it so our scripts department can see what's up.
  7. Forum got rolled back a few days.
  8. Another thing I could try - not sure how well it'd work - is giving naval units' worldboxes a damaging material that hurts ground vehicles. So if a ground vehicle's wheels touch the LST, the vehicle dies instantly. Kind of like how the water surface works against aircraft. Would have to make sure this doesn't affect units that try to ram LSTs though. If this doesn't work I'll probably just leave the "feature" as it is as the methods involving blockers are too constricting and the cheese is too time-consuming to be very useful.
  9. I'm sure I did apply the fix correctly, but regardless, I fail to see how that would result in FPS being higher than it was before the bridge's draw call saver was broken. Hell I just pulled out, the initial release, to make sure I'm not misremembering. The bridge smoke disappears in that version. And that's the version that was out when people were in this thread saying the map doesn't perform well.
  10. Considering that the performance complaints were before I implemented the repair nerf you suggested (which is what broke the scaffold's performance-saver) I doubt much will change...
  11. There'd still be that issue. Also destroyers and gunboats are much taller than LSTs so in order for them to not hit these walls there would have to be enough clearance that LSTs would still be able to lift low-profile vehicles like artillery around anyway.
  12. Those beaches already have a smorgasbord of blockers around them from the land side. It'd just look silly if they were completely surrounded.
  13. I think they're not getting pushed into the water because it's flat terrain which means the worldboxes of the vehicles are also flat. Since unflattening the water runs the risk of getting boats stuck due to their rigging, it looks like we may ultimately have to return to ye olde method of having fuck-you invisible walls in the water. Once the scripts team makes a collision group that collides with ground vehicles but not with naval/beaching/air units, that is. If I were to add vehicle-carrying LSTs (which we currently lack coding/scripting for anyway) the vehicles would have to be unable to function while being carried. Tesla Tank LSTs would be far superior to both types of submarine, MGGs being able to impact naval combat would enforce use of TTLSTs even further since TTs are now the de facto counter to MGGs, and MRJs being able to function on water while outside of V2 range, even deploying and continuing to float around once the LST leaves... yeah... And even then Under would need some work as that one is definitely not balanced around it. Many of the beaches are meant to be outright inaccessible to vehicles to prevent B2B artillery abuse while conveniently also providing more mine-free places for Allied infantry to land.
  14. This happens even while the bot is there though. I have to stop it and start it again to get the server to show up.
  15. Oh you mean the mine-clearing. In that case, here's the magic. Once again armor.ini is the bane of our existence. Except the change back then was intentional and I gave you a fair warning about it