Agent

They're concept images, not implementation screenshots. The UI leaves much to be desired.

I'll probably end up writing the ones about setting up servers and RCON. I've just mostly been working on non-wiki things.

Jarzey! Thanks so much for your contributions! ^-^ As far as I'm aware, we have no such chart. However you can probably find most of the relevant numbers in the class files on either GitHub or the SDK. In particular you'll want to look at the defaultproperties at the very bottom of the Rx_Weapon_* classes (Damage and other projectile properties will generally be in the Rx_Projectile_* classes though). Here's a link to the github repo, though it hasn't really been updated in quite some time (but is still more up-to-date than the SDK): https://github.com/TotemArts/Renegade-X/tree/master

He's talking about the slpash image before the engine/loading movies launch.

You'd probably want larger level design in order to accommodate the Juggernaut and Mammoth MK II. Tiberian Sun versions of the current maps would be pretty not great. Designing new maps, vehicles, units, weapons, etc would be quite a bit of work though and I don't think anybody's really willing to do all of that.

Good ol' Petroglyph... I've been meaning to try 8-bit armies out but haven't yet sadly.

You'd also need a number of character/NPC models, large levels being reimplemented, some additional UnrealScript code, and tons of Kismet.

Not planned and unlikely. There's a substantial amount of work that would have to go into making a full-fledged campaign.

I remember being in-game and on TeamSpeak with Vertiso in the channel during this lol

You must forward/allow inbound traffic to the game port of the server (UDP 7777 by default) as appropriate. In a home network environment, this will almost certainly mean both the firewall on the router and Windows firewall.

Done.

It is not a comeback mechanic, though it does lessen the severity of "there's nothing I can do so" by lowering the penalty associated with building destruction. It still however does not give the team any way to work on fixing their problem of missing a building, hence why recoverable buildings would be far more ideal and substantial solution. Teams need a way to go back to their start point. As far as implementing recoverable buildings, this is how I'd likely try to work it: There'd have to be a "construction time" associated with buildings so that the team doesn't just instantly rebuild their structure in addition to a financial cost (10,000 credits?). This financial cost might be covered by automatically diverting 1 credit per tick from players towards the most recently destroyed building, and also allowing players to contribute as they wish. If a full team just waits it out, it may take 10 minutes to gather the funds and construct the building (have the construction time set to 5 minutes, but halt when there are no funds to work with). What the above means is that if you destroy an enemy refinery and they don't actively contribute anything, their economy is shutdown to zero income for 10 minutes because their remaining income is being automatically redirected to rebuilding the refinery. If you destroy another building after that, then that one doesn't even get started on until after the Refinery is built (C&C doesn't believe in simultaneous building). However without encouraging players to leave their base and actively accomplish some objective (gather supplies/tiberium) to expedite the structure rebuilding, this still ends up being a mostly passive comeback mechanic. It doesn't fix the fact that the team will have little to do while their building is dead. You must give them something to do that will clearly help, other than bashing their head against the wall of tanks/snipers. As I mentioned, there's more than just one flaw to C&C mode -- there is no single thing that would resolve all of the game's problems. You can't build a game entirely around subtractive gameplay and not expect stalemates, because you'll constantly end up in situations where players just go "there's nothing I can do" and camp. Things like overly severe penalties for losing buildings (and not giving any way to fix them what-so-ever, or not giving any way to actively contribute to fixing them) just exacerbates the issue.

Since there were still occasional spam bots, I've added reCAPTCHA to the wiki. This is the simple version that requires you to just click the "I'm a Human" box most of the time, and only appears during account creation, failed logins, and when adding an external URL to a page. Once again, thank you to everyone who has contributed to the Wiki!

It's more-so just me ranting and getting my general thoughts down into mostly coherent words and to provide a general commentary of why C&C mode gets stalemates. There's definitely a few things that would be nice for Renegade X, but I don't anticipate actually implementing them.

Everybody here has played C&C mode, presumably quite a bit. The game mode certainly has its strengths, but after spending over 1900 hours in-game (either playing or testing), I would like to finally write down what I've concluded are the most significant and fundamental flaws to this mode. Subtractive Gameplay: What I mean by subtractive gameplay is the removal of game elements as a form of progression -- weakening your enemy. In C&C mode the objective is to destroy each of your opponent's buildings, which each serve a particular function. Losing a building greatly weakens a team, and removes content from the game over the course of the game either by restricting purchasable classes and vehicles, or by directly weakening the economy. Renegade X improves on this area by lowering the severity of the penalties (you can still buy APCs on a cooldown after losing a vehicle factory; you can still buy low-tier advanced infantry after losing an infantry factory; you still have some income after losing the Refinery; class costs are increased by 50% instead of 100% when losing the Power Plant), but still continues to rely on this as a bastardized form of progression. Instead of gaining advantages for yourself and becoming stronger, the focus is to inflict disadvantages and make your opponent weaker. As a result the game frequently devolves into prolonged stalemates where players don't know what to do because there is nothing either team can do. Surrender and map change votes only help when all hope is lost, which happens because... Recovery (Counter-Subtractive) Mechanics: Renegade doesn't have any recovery mechanics at all for buildings. Any death is a form of subtractive gameplay and should be recoverable, just as a lost tank or infantry can be repurchased. In RTS games where buildings are destroyed regularly, you can replace them and continue progressing towards your goal of defeating the enemy. These simply don't exist in Renegade. Since we have static buildings (they don't disappear when destroyed), the only practical way of implementing this would be to make buildings directly recoverable (such as through a mandatory team-wide economic penalty until the building was rebuilt). This would help resolve the aforementioned situation where there is nothing a team can realistically do, because now the team can not only recover from their setback, but they can actively work towards that goal (i.e: gather and contribute funds to the project). This would add something that Renegade also lacks... Tertiary (Active) Objectives: With "destroy the enemy base" and "defend your own" being the primary and secondary objectives respectively, there are very few tertiary objectives. In Renegade there are 2 tertiary objectives you can accomplish -- capture the Silo (additive objective), and destroy the enemy harvester (subtractive objective). This forces players to focus on the primary and secondary objectives, which eventually becomes dull and players begin to feel like there's nothing they can really do because there is nothing else they can do to support their team. With additional tertiary objectives, players have more to fight over and field control becomes more important (one example of a possible objective might be "destroy the Scrin Mothership", and give the killing team some sort of damage upgrade such as rail gun technology). Examples of tertiary objectives in other games might be the Dragon and Baron in League of Legends, leveling up and gathering items for your hero in WarCraft 3, or Wonders in Civilization. Each of these games implement additive tertiary objectives, which is what Renegade needs in order to create more... Additive Gameplay: What I mean by additive gameplay is the introduction of game elements as a form of progression -- strengthening your team. The only forms of additive gameplay are passive economic growth, and the Silo (which further supports passive economic growth). Veterancy (which can be passive or active, depending on implementation) is being worked on, and is an example of an upcoming additive gameplay element. Additive gameplay includes additive-type tertiary objectives (active progression), as well as any other additive progression (such as passive progression). Since keeping players engaged is important, additive gameplay is most commonly implemented as tertiary objectives, because it forces players to actively participate in the game and creates contest. Other forms of additive gameplay might be base building or tech trees. There are other flaws in Renegade of course such as unintuitive mines, little death penalty (short spawn times), or lack of a continuous gold sink ("what do I do with the 20k credits I've accumulated on Islands!?"), but this list covers what I believe to be the most fundamental issues that should be actively avoided in other games / game modes. Ultimately this can be summed up as "stalemates happen because there's nothing to do except camp". I've also discovered that the Tiberian Sun soundtrack isn't too bad to listen to while writing ( ).That's my rant of the day, Jessica

The SBH thing is just a bug.

High limit servers are awful because there's no cost to placing or replacing those mines. If there's a cost associated to mining it becomes incredibly cost prohibitive to do things like mining against vehicles. Additionally it'd finally create an obvious money sink in the game so that there aren't as many "oh we lost the refinery? it's okay, I've banked 20k" situations. Restricting proximity C4 to specific areas is wonky at best, and you'd be better served by removing proximity c4 and replacing it with an entirely different mechanic. As it is mine limits restrict the creativity and versatility of proximity C4 just as restricting placement locations would. They need to be removed, and a cost needs to be added just as there is a cost for every other purchasable object in the game such as vehicles and beacons.

This has been indirectly discussed before; ideally we'd like to have a character selection menu of some sort appear after a few seconds.

I think I see the issue. I believe it has to do with this snippet: if (LastTeamToUse != 255 && GetTeamNum() != LastTeamToUse) { VehicleStolen(); LastTeamToUse = GetTeamNum(); } Which results in 'LastTeamToUse' never being assigned to the owning team. I've changed this to: if (GetTeamNum() != LastTeamToUse) { if (LastTeamToUse != 255) VehicleStolen(); LastTeamToUse = GetTeamNum(); }

Yes.

I've suggested repeatedly that removing proximity C4 from hotwires/technicians, replacing them with a non-refillable purchasable item, and removing the mine limit would be a perfect remedy to this constant problem. This way proximity C4 could become a valid weapon to use in various areas of the map (crate spawns, bunkers, silo, rocks) rather than strictly doors.

There's already a bot named after me though lol. Mine's the "Jessica James" one. Wouldn't mind if there were a few more female bots though ^-^ Edit: freak's a ninja!

Rx_Bot is the most relevant.

yeah, we'll probably add the new developers to the list with the upcoming patch -- I just need to collect everyone's names.

I'm not hearing a no! :-D