Old or new spawn system discussion thread

[Old or new spawn system discussion thread]

6 hours ago, LilyV3 said:

the new one is mostly good except with not being able to give players choices AROUND the missions objective. if it gets that it would be quite fine.

Spawning "around" mission objectives doesn't work - both teams would be able to spawn in the same locations then.

Nevertheless spawns should somewhat be distributed 180° around the objectives for each team.

 

6 hours ago, Kempington said:

I think the problem is thst the spawn system cannot take into account the geometry of the map at all, it just finds what spawn points are closest to the objective and puts them up as available, as well as some less preferred ones.

[...]

It needs to be reworked to accommodate more options or "smarter" ones at least. I'm pretty sure it's not possible for it to take into account the geometry of the surroundings and possible routes to the objective from the spawn point, but maybe something else to improve its selection it gives you?

Ideally spawns would be manually placed and an algorithm merely figures out which team currently "owns" which spawns.  As elsewhere mentioned in this thread going through the maps manually to select decent spawn locations is a monumental task, but then again there are dozens of players who know the maps inside out and could rapidly provide a list of decent spawns.

 

As for the algorithm, I believe it work somewhat like a meta-gamemode, which allows each team to "capture" spawn points by occupying an area and keeping enemies out of it. Generally this is already how the current system works (i.e. spawns become available near teammates and unavailable near enemies), but sometimes the available spawns can not accommodate for all variables and then the system falls apart entirely. Again, hand-crafted spawns and a slightly more "interactive" ruleset might alleviate these issues.

[(Forum) BBcode edit mode (and more)]

Just a plain old BB-code editor instead of the java-script fully automated thing would be nice.

[[GAME] Update weapon models for the original RTW guns]

As soon as they make them look too close to the real deal they might have to license the real weapons.
That's why they are neither exact copies nor named after real weapons.

 

The CR-5 is a M-16 rifle with a 10 or 15 round mag, btw.

[Questions for LO]

13 hours ago, Ken2 said:

You may wait for apb to get populated once again... if they fail, then implementing to these ideas wont be that bad.

If that ever happens. But even then having a unified playerbase instead of several split groups would benefit the game's longlivety. It's in everyone's best interest to keep this game alive, I reckon, and the server situation is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the key detriments.

[Questions for LO]

I guess I don't really have a question, but I want to touch on something that you might be approaching from the wrong direction currently:

Concerning servers, server merges and character transfers, you seem inclined to keep the current state of regional servers with unique character databases. This is a flawed system to begin with and something which the original game was, iirc, supposed to handle differently.
Despite the difficulties Matt mentioned about merging character databases / transferring characters, your team should consider merging all characters onto one database and have districts hosted in different regions (e.g. Financial-EN1 (US), Financial-EN2 (UK), Financial-DE1 (GER), Financial-RU1 (RUS) and so forth).
This reduces the issue of a low playerbase in general, as well as low populations during off-time.
At the cost of lag, players could then chose districts/servers from a different region.

[Welcome to the new forums]

I'm missing two things: A raw code editor (is it still BB-code based?) and non-squared avatars.

Also the performance seems to be fairly meager, will this improve in the future?

 

Digging the colour-scheme, though, you nailed that one.