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 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.

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.

Yeah especially since compared to old ren, not being able to disarm a beacon in the last 10 seconds SUCKS! I loved the thrill of disarming one right as it was about to hit lol.

Storm in a teacup... the simple solution is to learn how to counter SBH... there are a few ways you can do thjis... Patch is pretty decent and similarly priced. But a mobius will win a fight with a SBH every time unless your aim is potato. If you know they like to camp then actively look for them... don't stand still and make yourself an easy target for SBH (and not to mention snipers).

Had this a lot as well, seems to be since the last update.

I did read it and it will make sense if you can read and comprehend it.

Not sure why, has been for a couple of hours now. Not sure if server issue or ddos...

I wouldn't say to do this for literally everything that gets Q spotted... it would clutter the map with icons in high pop matches. Beside the point most newer players probably don't check the map very often. The commander can Q spot things and a marker gets placed ont them so people can track their target without opening the map overlay - I find this much more useful.

Beacons are a critical part of the game and can be the only way to break a stalemate if your team won't vote on a commander. I don't think it is fair to disable them completely, regardless of player count. But perhaps some kind of rational limitation could be implimented to prevent abuse (including fake beacon spam in high pop matches). Suggestion 1: Have a cooldown from the start of a match, say 30 minutes, prior to which beacons cannot be purchased. This would force people to use traditional means to destroy buildings early on, ie vehicle and infantry rushes. Then if it becomes a stalemate later on, beacons can be used to help break it. It would mitigate the number of beacons used in smaller matches since low pop ones seldom last longer than this. Suggestion 2: Add a cooldown timer per player so they can only buy one beacon every 10 minutes or so after that. This would contribute heavily to reducing beacon spam regardless of player count. It would directly address the issue of people buying beacons when they arguably shouldn't, rather than punishing people for being in a geographical location where they play during the small hours.

Why would you want to take away Nod's main advantage? SBH are fairly easy to kill and will only be able to kill you quickly if you are standing still like a potato. Beside the point if there are 4-5 sbh guarding the silo, you could just let them havee it and put the 4-5 players on GDI into a rush - silo won't mean jack if their base is dead.

So I notice we can no longer exit buildings when in freecam mode at the start of a match (before the 10 second timer counts down). Was this intentional? I may have skimmed past it in the patch notes. It is somewhat annoying as I would often spam for people to attack or defend certain structures using Qspot. Helps get players on board with early game rushes which are critical especially in smaller player counts (which there usually is when I'm on).

Yep and that's the point of the game, to destroy the enemy base. We don't need to insulate players in bubble wrap do we? All you need is a couple of engineers camping with remotes and you can defend against what players make it into say the Nod ref on Field. People have plenty to do int he early game, capture tech buildings, destroy the harvester and control the map in general. It is more complex than the original Renegade where we would just rush the enemy harvester with free inf every match.

Yeah just ad microtransactions and you're set! Kappa

Oh sheet, RMCool13! Yeah I was a moderator.

The problem with this feature, in smaller nnumbers anyway, is that you can end up with one team automatically being given a commander and the other not having one. So they have to muck around voting for one - if the people on that team can even be bothered. And some people have their opinions on use of commander powers in small games. Perhaps in larger games this would be fine, but in lower player counts...

MRLS missiles still track their targets right? That gives them a bit of an advantage over Arties. Also you don't have to arc the shots like you do with Arty shells. They go exactly where you aim.