crazfulla

In some cases, they weren't. I remember some matches lasting upward of 8 hours. Eventually a server mod had to come in and use a command to end it. Walls was particularly notorious for this, especially when all GDI had left was the barracks. There were no EMPs or anything to disarm the mines, it took a lot of co ordination to pull it off. I have always been a fan of sneaking, but it wasn't always balanced. On under for example it wasn't as easy to walk the GDI power plant. Harvester walking was also a thing, which I haven't really seen anyone do in RenX. I agree, vehicles on the whole feel a lot slower than they were in original Renegade. The stank for example I remember being able to duck in and out of cover a bit easier. I guess it is due to the addition of veterancy? Does that increase speed? or just armour / firepower?

A few well placed mines will prevent cheeky beacons on most maps... and even if someone does place a beacon, you can destroy one of their buildings quicker with C4. I get sick of people moaning about beacons more than I get sick of beacons themselves. That being said there is already a serverside option to ban beacons if less than X players so if someone wants to run a server with it enabled go ahead.

I don't think disarming beacons is suposed to be realistic. I mean, the nuke explosion is like less than 1% the size that it should be. For me its about the impact it has on the game. And you're right, low pop matches mean different tactics can be used. Sneaking in with a Hotwire or Technician is easier while doza rushing is harder due to having fewer players to get involved. I think a lot of people are just too accustomed to larger matches and refuse to adapt or acknowledge that some people actually prefer smaller player counts. Had a conversation about this the other day in game with some others, so I know I'm not alone. Seems to be an unpopular opinion though lol.

I think you miss the point of my comments. I'm used to playing in smaller games due to my time zone. I'm kinda forced to because most people here I think are in the UK which is literally the other side of the planet from me. I think others would get used to it as well if they actually bothered to play the game instead of complaining and spamming polls every time they lose - not naming names of course. I feel that the more restrictions the devs put in place, the more it takes away from the experience. You need to be hyper aggressive in smaller matches. Only in the occasional instance when there is say a player imbalance on the teams - say 4v6 - will I start using comm or beacons. I don't need to the majority of the time, as you should know if you have been on the opposing team. Especially when I'm on Nod. I'm pretty sure commander was implimented as a way to help break stalemates that frequently occurred in the original Renegade. Take that away and you make the matches take longer than they need to - it gets boring and stagnant. Think of any other popular game such as world of tanks or fortnite. Most matches don't last more than 15 mins. RenX matches - even with comm enabled - can drag on for hours. I think this is one of the main issues with getting more new players - the majority of people just don't have patience for that. Also beacons are fairly easily defendable. If you are in the field you can easily suicide to respawn in base and respond to such an event. Although you should always have someone on defence anyway to prevent beacons being placed. Of course some maps its easier to do this than others... IMO it would be better if you could still disarm beacons in the final 10 seconds making them slightly less viable in smaller matches. In larger matches I don't think this change would have any major effect as most pf the time when theres 64 players on half of them are camping in their own base anyway.

There is a serverside option to do that...

I didn't think insta killing was still possible... pretty sure the damage cruise missiles do to GTs was reduced at some stage already. Any further nerfs may render them practically worthless considering the CP cost and the fact they can be shot down. Perhaps a simple solution would be for cruise missiles to block airstrikes momentarily.

I get the feeling that balancing them would be diabolical.

Yeah EMPs are great for disarming mines... its one change they brought in presumably to help break a stalemate. A lot of infantry weapons also have an alternative fire mode attached to the right mouse button. Experiment with those. As for snipers... their rifles arent really for close range encounters. Pretty sure thats why some also have an SMG.

I relate to a lot of what Sarah said. Due to my time zone I'm always on in the small hours and I can tell you first hand how annoying it is to have beacons and comm categorically disabled. I just posted a comment in the other commander topic if anyone wants to read a short novel.

Personally I don't think the commander function itself is the problem. People are the problem. Passing the blame, lack of experience, refusal to co-operate, and so on... all human factors. There isn't much that you could change in the commander function to mitigate any of this. I'm in New Zealand. So when its evening here, its midnight in the US and early morning in the UK. Servers are quiet. I try not to use commander too much since there is a bit of a stigma around using it in small games. However I will sometimes take the role if it becomes too much of a stalemate. It has been a decent opportunity for me to learn and become more fluid with the hotkeys. Also credit to Blackhand for his youtube videos. I joined a match the other day on Islands where the bases had been reduced to just the Barracks and Hand of Nod. The match had been going for over an hour. Nobody wanted to vote for a commander I assume because player count was low. So after about half an hour longer of failed infantry and APC rushes I managed to convince people to vote to change the map. This is also a problem with people. The commander function wasn't even used so you can't blame that. Without doing the map change vote it likely would have gone on for hours, like it some times did in C&C Renegade. But even with what happened I feel cheated of a natural ending, win or lose, that could have been achieved by working as a team and electing one person per side to co-ordinate. IMO it's the stigma around commander that needs to be scrapped. If we can do that, and allow people to learn how to use it more effectively, then maybe we will solve more than one problem.

Maybe RenX could take donations in another way, like hojw Ebay sellers pass on Paypal fees as "handling".

I'm not entirely sure. It essentially is not for profit tho anyway. So why not?

What are people's thoughts on this? Just played a match on Field X where Nod had decisively, effectively won. All GDI had left was the Refinery and AGT. 2 mins and the game would have been over anyway. GDI decided to ragequit and yeah, changed the map. To me this comes accross as rude and selfish. The excuse was the usual "Map is too big", however it is just a variant of an original Westwood map. So in reality that claim has little merit. The only meaningful change (in small numbers) is the addition of a Power Plant for each team, and some other geographical changes (such as access to the Airstrip). The outer vehicle route... is kinda inconsequential in small numbers because it takes too long to reach the enemy base. People had a chance to vote for a different map at the end of the previous match, but they didn't. Half of the server voted for Field X. They also could have changed the map a lot sooner, I think the match went for about half an hour (during which GDI was dominating the field). But NOOOO. When GDI eventually lost 3 buildings (PP WF abnd Bar) in the space of about 2 minutes to an infantry rush... they get salty and start making up excuses to deny Nod the win. There is no logical reasoning for this right as the match was about to end other than to spite others. IMO the ability to vote to change the map should not be allowed if a team has lost 2 or more structures, or if the match has lasted more than say 15 minutes. They always had the ability to surrender, which the GDI team did on the previous map. But in this case they deliberately opted not to use that option. They actually wanted to deny Nod the win that they had earned. In case anyone reads this who was in this match... It wasn't Nod's fault if you were too busy killing our harvester over and over to defend your own base. Take some responsibility. Stop acting like a spoiled child. Show some respect for your opponents. And maybe try learning from your mistakes so you don't lose next time. Yeah, that's what really grinds my gears.

Agree outposts is imbalanced. The field is too big and open for GDI to be able to control. All the small hills and rocks provide a perfect opportunity for stealth tanks to fire rockets from cover so Meds and mammies can't hit them back. But that has nothing to do with their stealth ability, more the map design. As for sbh... let them camp the silo. The more people they have camping it the less they have defending their base.

interesting concept. BUT it could bring too much complexity. Being able to be flexible between defending and attacking is key IMO and locking people into squads may be counterintuitive.