JoeBrogan7
-
Posts
48 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Downloads
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by JoeBrogan7
-
-
6 hours ago, poi said:
I hope the devs/server owners are finally just gonna work on the game performance instead of what a couple people want.
Interesting choice of words. Take a poll in-game and see what players prefer. The last few that were taken that I can remember, most players voted for >40.
According to this poll, people who prefer 40 players or less is at 49%. So your position isn't even in the clear majority. Calling our position "a couple people" is misleading at best.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Handepsilon said:
You guys really need to stop this tradition, honestly. It doesn't matter if the limit was 40, 48, 56 or 64. This whole tradition of server browser refreshing is what will keep the game to only be played at 1 server only
I think it does matter. Re-read Ty's first post. Specifically this bit:
10 hours ago, Tytonium said:- After any match, the player count is expected to drop a little ways as people go off to do other things.
- Having 48 players as the cap results in player counts dropping to 30-40 players after each match.
- This slows the game-play down to a crawl during beginning of each match.
-
It takes a good bit of time for player counts to rise up after this happens.
-
During this time it is possible (and very likely) that one team could rofl-stomp the other team because of a lack of players.
- This in turn causes a self feed back loop, and the server dies for the day. This has been happening, as the servers are dying earlier than normal.
-
During this time it is possible (and very likely) that one team could rofl-stomp the other team because of a lack of players.
36 minutes ago, Handepsilon said:The game's already overburdened by your obscene demand for higher playercaps
Obscene demand? 64 players has been the norm across multiple servers for 2+ years. I don't see how asking to go back to that is obscene. Besides, if you wanted to alleviate network overflows, a server owner might consider dropping to 62, 60, or 58 players to see at what point it becomes acceptable. Dropping instantly down to 48 players (a 25% decrease) seems like quite a heavy-handed and arbitrary approach to take.
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Tytonium said:
Imagine it, you just opened up the server browser. You have a server with 48/48 players and another with 8/48 players. In all practicality you will likely spam the refresh button until the already full server drops by one so that you can join. That is exactly how it will be for every player if the 48 player cap was set as the standard.
No need for anybody to imagine this. I'm sure we all do it on a pretty regular basis 🤐
-
I agree Ty, and you did a much better job than I would have making the point. I've barely played the past week because of the 48 player cap. Those games are just not as fun and feel very lonely. I've griped about it a few times in the RenX discord, but I'm going to stop so as not to be too annoying. Regardless, I see myself playing a lot less if 64 players goes away.
-
2
-
1
-
-
How about make the ob shot "jump" through 3 or 4 infantry units if they are in close proximity to each other. Direct hit = 100% damage, first jump 75% damage, 2nd jump 50% damage and third jump 25% damage.
Sort of unrelated but I'd like to see LCGs be able to charge the obelisk for a more powerful shot, akin to how Tesla Troopers can charge a Tesla Coil in RA2.
-
1
-
-
I'm just gonna repost something I wrote about this a few weeks ago...(bolded the most relevant part)
QuoteWith that said, perhaps more people would enjoy playing defense if it weren't for the VP penalties incurred (like how you earn more VP for killing near the enemy's base than near your base). I enjoy playing defense, but there aren't many opportunities to gain veterancy. And sticking to defense into the mid and late game only ensures you will still be be a lowly Recruit or Veteran while most other players are hitting Elite or even Heroic, which is not a fun imbalance to be a part of.
Perhaps finding more ways to reward VP for overtly defensive acts would help? For example, giving a bonus in VP for killing enemy Hotwires/Techs within your own base. Or, a bonus for successfully EMPing a group of tanks right outside your base.. Or, a bonus for disarming enemy C4 on your building's MCTs...Or, a bonus for repairing prox mines being hit by an enemy EMP....etc.
-
2
-
-
Tytonium goes back to school for one week and he's already turned crazy. 😱
-
3
-
-
48 minutes ago, Tytonium said:
Islands kinda sucks
How dare you.
But I agree, 64 players is optimal and less than 40 players is quite lonely and boring most of the time.
-
6 hours ago, Rups said:
I agree with Dakuja on the note that artillery also has specific niche areas where its curvature really lets it shoot at things without exposing itself much, much like the curved missiles of the MRLS do.
The gravity arc of arties is both a pro and a con, though. There are many instances/maps where an arty is trying to hit a target at short/medium range with a slight difference in elevation....and it can't hit it. Either the shell hits the ground right in front, or it completely sails right over the target and hits the ground 100 yards away. Contrast that to MRLS curving which can essentially be turned on or off by the player.
6 hours ago, Rups said:While it would be a drastic and partially unrealistic solution, how about we vastly reduce (or even completely remove) the damage curved rockets deal to buildings?
That may help, but personally I feel the the worst aspect of MRLS curving is not hitting buildings, it's hitting the area at the front of the base where techs/ravs/LCGs are typically gathered while trying to push out. On Under on Saturday, I was utterly ineffective with my Rav because there were 2 or 3 MRLS curving their rockets just in front of the Obelisk. By the time I got to the front to peak out and shoot a tank, my armor was almost completely gone already. I feel like this is a game-breaking aspect of MRLS curving because it can entirely neutralize Nod's infantry support during sieges. It's almost like having a permanent enemy air strike at the front of your base.
-
1
-
1
-
-
...you see a cardboard box IRL and your first reaction is to run through it to see what you get.
-
3
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Shpetim - to relentlessly taunt the other team
Slow - to hog commander for his own benefit
Tytonium - to control all the spooky caves
Ryz - to complain about the team not participating so much that it drives us to band together and win just to end the game and his complaining
Roweboat - for his endless cruise missiles once he wrests control of Commander from slow
I am an Owl - to frustrate enemies in the tunnels as much as he frustrates me when I play against him
Kaunas - because I feel like I can never understand wtf he's talking about but he's always entertaining
Schrott - so he can stand in the same spot for 45 minutes trying to pad his k/d with a sakura
Mariusz - because there is nobody more effective and annoying than Mariusz with a stank
And Confuser - because while the rest of us are farking around, he will go on and destroy the enemy's base all by himself with a McFarland or something-
3
-
8
-
11 hours ago, crazfulla said:
That isn't what I said. There is always room for improvement, even at the top level. As I said, everyone makes mistakes. In the Zero hour world series recently, a player that seems to be considered the equivelent of "global elite" was knocked out in round one. My final point was that people lack the ability to self scrutinise. Without that ability, then no, they will never attain a higher level of skill.
But it is. You said "It ruins the whole event when people stack teams, but ragequitting changes nothing. People simply need to improve on their own skill and work themselves up to the same level."
In the context of a RenX tournament, it is unrealistic to expect players to simply improve their own skill so that they stack up comparably to an elite player. It's never going to happen. So my point is (again, in the context of a RenX tournament) we would need to go with Xeon's approach of manually balancing teams/elite players rather than RNG method.
-
On 10/16/2019 at 8:41 PM, crazfulla said:
100% agree. It ruins the whole event when people stack teams, but ragequitting changes nothing. People simply need to improve on their own skill and work themselves up to the same level. Even "pros" sometimes make mistakes. I think less experienced players often find it easier to point the finger rather than to learn from their own and capitalise on the opportunity.
The "just get better" or "try harder" argument doesn't really hold up, especially in the context of Xeon's post. There will always be elite players. They are considered elite precisely because they're playing at a level that is simply unattainable for most others. If it were only a matter of trying harder or practicing more, there would be a heck of a lot more elite players, which means they wouldn't be considered elite in the first place.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, TRRDroid said:
Unpopular opinions?
Stacking is not an issue, people are just not trying hard enough or give up before they even try just because person x and Y are on the same team.
Let's be honest. The vast majority of players have nowhere near the skill of person X and Y, and they never will, no matter how hard they try. I often switch away from the stack whenever I can. And, despite my best efforts, I'm on the losing team the overwhelming majority of the time.
Just because people complain about stacking doesn't mean they've stopped playing. You can do both at the same time. It just means people are tired of getting killed 20 times in a row by the same two people, and no amount of "trying harder" is going to change that.
-
4
-
2
-
-
On 8/11/2019 at 6:42 AM, BeLlSiBuB said:
I think 3 mins is ok but perhaps the system should be tweaked more to take into account what the player is doing at the time of being kicked. I used to wonder why some repairers go crazy in the buildings moving forwards and backwards as if dodging a bullet. Maybe they do this becuase they don't want to be kicked.
I do that sometimes, but it's because I'm bored, and I know if I leave the building I'm repairing it will most likely be destroyed. AFAIK, a single tap on any of the keys on the keyboard is enough to reset the AFK timer.
I do agree it would be nice if the AFK timer could differentiate between a normal AFK and an AFK repairing a building. Like if the kicker ignored you as long as you keep earning points. Or at the very least, allow a longer period of inactivity while afk repping (10 minutes instead of 3 if startfire is on, for example.)
Repping buildings is one of the most important aspects of the game, but it's also one of the most boring. Such a tweak would make it more bearable to devote time to repairing a building without having to worry about getting kicked and potentially losing your spot in the server (not to mention maybe even losing the building once you're kicked and are no longer there to repair it.)
-
It worked for me when I had to set it again last night, but I use "thumbmousebutton" instead of a keyboard key.
setbind thumbmousebutton startfire
-
On 6/6/2019 at 2:32 PM, Radeon3 said:
And for the love of Kane, do something with the 64 player limit already. How many times do we need to bring up its effects on the game?
On 6/6/2019 at 3:31 PM, roweboat said:That being said, I feel all servers should be capped to 50 max, maybe even 32. (I know this has been discussed ad neauseum in the past...)
Many of the in game problems go away with less players all playing at once.
I'm late to the party, but I wanted to comment on this sentiment and offer a different perspective. While smaller servers may be beneficial in certain areas, they make other, existing issues even worse. Namely stacking, and issues where players get stuck on a losing team for 4, 5, 6+ games in a row.
Larger servers have a more natural tendency to balance out the gameplay. Elite players have a smaller effect in a larger server, as there are more people around to counter them. Similarly, larger servers also tend to mask the weaknesses of new players more. Teamwork usually becomes the deciding factor rather than the skill of a handful of players on each side. Since balance in this game is so critical, I think this is a very important thing to keep in mind, especially considering how much focus team stacking has gotten lately.
Additionally - it is not a foregone conclusion that everyone agrees smaller servers are better. According to this poll, we are split nearly 50/50 on supporting servers with 50+ players vs servers with 40 or less. If you factor in a separate poll that UFO posted in that same thread, the split starts leaning towards favoring 50+ player servers.
To paraphrase my analysis in that thread, 43.7% prefer matches of 40 players or less. 56.3% prefer matches of 50 players or more. If you also consider the polls Ryz and Kaunas created in-game, the gap appears to widen a bit more.
-
The poll numbers are interesting, especially if you combine the Russian poll with the one on this forum:
Out of a combined 87 people who voted, 43.7% prefer matches of 40 players or less. 56.3% prefer matches of 50 players or more. If you consider the polls Ryz created in-game, then the gap seems to widen a bit. Granted, we don't know how many people who voted in-game also voted in the forum, etc. so we should take that into consideration. But it appears that the 40 player crowd is not in the majority.
Personally, I voted for 60, though I'd be okay with 50 as a compromise. 40 might be okay in PUG matches, but in regular matches there's always going to be a few people who are AFK, turning your 20-person team into a 17 or 18 person team at times. I just don't think that's enough for most maps.
Also, consider that 64 player matches help mitigate team stacking and elite players who have the skill and ability to control a game on their own. In a 20v20 match, a single elite player can have a huge effect on the outcome of a game. In a 32v32 match, that effect is less pronounced as it becomes more difficult for a single player to dominate any particular area. Teamwork usually becomes the deciding factor rather than the skill of a handful of players on each side, and each team usually has a decent chance of winning, regardless of how the elite players are divided in a match. And at the end of the day, isn't that what RenX is all about? Teamwork?
-
2
-
1
-
-
Am I the only one who actually likes the mining system? 🤯
Granted, I get that it's counter intuitive for new players, and is a big source of angst for vets to see new players overmining and whatnot.
I'll just throw this out there: perhaps a sort of hybrid between the current mining system and turret system that yosh mentioned. Weak automated turrets in every building as the primary base defense. But advanced engineers can still place prox mines, but with a personal limit rather than a team limit (let's say each adv engineer can place only 2 mines or something...). And the mines disappear if you switch character classes, which would prevent players from buying an adv engineer, placing their mines, and then switching to a different character from that point on.
So every building would have a base level of protection from the turrets, but you'd still be able to throw a few mines in important buildings (but very few, because it would take too many adv engineers to properly mine even 2 buildings.
An added benefit is players could still mine building ramps, protecting the top of buildings, where (I'm assuming) turrets won't be able to shoot.
Edit: It would also encourage a little more variability in matches, since there would no longer be a "right" or "wrong" way to use your personal mines, and we might see some creative ideas for mines in the field or even in the enemy's base.
-
On 6/5/2018 at 6:00 PM, Sarah! said:
No other server uses that specific setting, that's why. I will change the setting tonight when people are offline.
I think the setting change worked. I played about 7 games in a row and started on GDI twice and NOD the rest of the time. Not sure why it's uneven but it's a lot better than before where it was GDI every single time. Thanks!
-
1 minute ago, Sarah! said:
No other server uses that specific setting, that's why. I will change the setting tonight when people are offline.
Thank you. I will give an update this weekend when I play.
-
1 minute ago, Sarah! said:
Yes.
Is there anything that can be done about that, either on the server end or on my end? Or do I have to settle for manually trying to switch teams whenever I fancy playing as Nod?
As I mentioned, this doesn't seem to happen on the other servers.
-
5 minutes ago, Sarah! said:
I don't see how any server setting could cause this.
I'm wondering... how does the server decide to assign players to each team? Is it GDI-NOD-GDI-NOD as each player finishes loading?
If, for example, I am the first player to finish loading in a series of games, would it make sense that it assigns me to GDI every time?
-
Every time I am in the server and a new map loads, it defaults me to GDI. It doesn't happen on the other servers (or at least it didn't used to, I've only played on Fair Play over the last few weeks). So I'm thinking it might be a server-related setting? Is this possible?
64 Player Count Cap
in Renegade X
Posted
It's about a 50/50 split according to the poll I linked. So ≤ 40 isn't a majority, either. That was my point. So to say something like "devs should focus on x instead of placating a couple of players" is a bit disingenuous and dismissive, and ignores the reality that the community is quite evenly split on the issue.