MajesticSausage

Yeah this is definitely on servers that have auto-binding enabled, buying other vehicles in the same match is fine. Also in the behaviour described above, I have to unbind the vehicle first, then rebind it to get the lock back. Like I said I'll try to reproduce and get some screenshots/footage of it, who knows, maybe I'm just too drunk when playing RenX and imagining things.

Ah but it is a bug. Medium tanks fresh from.the WF should be automatically bound to me, yet they have no lock. I'll try and get on some time this week and try to reproduce the issue

Sorry no screenshots for this (but you can see it in @roweboat's first image. Sometimes when you get into a vehicle (mostly seems to be med tanks) The lock icon fails to appear at all. I've found if you unbind and rebind the vehicle it will reappear which makes me wonder if it is something to do with the binding behaviour

I like it. General thoughts: - Remove some trees at the back of the bar. It's super easy to get your mammy stuck there. - Reduce the fog/lighten the map. Getting constantly headshot by enemies you cant actually see sort of sucks. - More highground for defenders, maybe some catwalks or something. - Epic characters as bosses - AI Raveshaw can't shoot? - Nod vs waves of GDI when?

Dope, nice one Freak (and @Handepsilon). Megaspeed sounds hilarious

I should make it clear. I'm not saying turn friendly-fire on for everyone forever. I mean make the person who got the crate receive friendly fire until the next time they die or get to a terminal to refill.

We were discussing it at the pug on Saturday. I'm surprised they have released such a poor quality video tbh. I'd say it's fairly obvious that this is very early stages proof of concept stuff so I agree that it's best not to judge it too harshly, but I feel like even for a pre-alpha video this is shonky. My guess is that some old Westwood heads (and nostalgic new folk) pitched this internally at Petroglyph but now they need to prove the business case for it (is there any audience for it) for development to continue, so the "trailer" is a hastily thrown together attempt to test the waters. Personally I'm all for it. I suspect I'm not alone in thinking that Renegade was a diamond in the rough and did a lot of very cool things nobody else has done then or since (I mean we're all here playing renX right.) Totem arts have proven that updating the core design can polish said diamond and push it into being something truly compelling, in fact I suggested on saturday that whoever pitched Earthbreakers was using RenX and it's small but active community as an important data point. I think Petroglyph are a solid developer and expanding upon and experimenting with the bedrock Renegade laid down is only a good thing. I've always felt Renegade is a fascinating if flawed games and its ideas deserve a chance to be explored. I really hope it goes the distance and they get a chance to polish it up into something more compelling. *BOINK*

- Fair point on the donation. You could make it a percentage. That way it scales with wealth. - Agreed on the rank changing. I would see this as an inverse to the veterancy crate. - I sort of see that as the point, it's a negative crate. IMO It's better than just getting nuked out of nowhere as you still have options. If you do die than ok, you died. I think you should always have a way out of these things so maybe it could be dispelled with a visit to a purchase terminal, after a time limit or if you get x amount of kills.

That's a fair point about the VP, but it doesn't have to be loads of VP and the idea is to have rarer negative effects. But then again it does fall back into the instant kill crates as there is nothing you can do. Not sure I agree about the crate hunters TBH. I feel it is more commonly the people dominating the field who just get to farm the crates. The point of the credit donation is that it isn't your choice (you can just go buy a mammy at the WF, but a crate might give you one.) Yes it's in the game, but the point is having a negative effect that doesn't completely fuck you. I feel like based on what freak said, that donating all your credits is too much, but I still feel like maybe a percentage could work. You got a negative crate, but it helped your team out a bit, you are dirt poor so you only lost 10 credits. I don't understand why it would need to be a civillian? Although that could also be another crate, maybe bring back the chef. It's not safety truly pacifistic though as you still have a weapon, it's just not your volt gun or whatever. Again the point of this one was to give you a negative, but still give you a chance to survive and also to get your shit back if you hit a purchase terminal. Maybe it could be fun to dispelled if you get a kill with your pistol, that way you're not taken out of the fight and you are given an objective. Yeah the more we talk about FF the less I feel it would be a good fit. But then again I sort of don't feel the griefing is too bad. It would be for one life, a timer or till you get to purchase terminal. So what if someone on your own team bleps you? How is that worse than instantly having a nuke dropped on your head? Yeah that's a fair point on the curse. Again maybe it could work with the purchase terminal removal or something? How about another strain of "negative crates" that give you objectives as a way out. Place C4 on your head but if you get a kill before it goes off it is cancelled out. For the next 30 seconds your health will slowly drain to 0 unless you are doing damage to something/someone.

Make in single use? (I know that doesn't fit C&C lore but then....is that too important?) The construction yard will rebuild a destroyed building entirely, but you can only use it once. Is it more important you get base power back online? Or rebuild your air strip? Will this give you a chance to turn the tide?

Yeah, especially since the Nuke destroys any surrounding team-mates. I get the idea that there should be negative crates as well as positive but I feel that the ones that just kill you (and your friends) outright are way too punishing. Other ideas for negative effects that don't totally ruin your shit: Demoted crate: - You lose some VP Philanthropy!: - You donate all of your credits to your team. Safety scissors: - You lose all your weapons apart from a pistol until you can get to a purchase terminal and restock. Enemy radar scan: - You set off a radar scan around you and your location is shown to the enemy, Friendly fire: - You take damage from friends Untrustworthy: - Your team's base defences will target you now (imagine trying to infiltrate your own base to buy a tank)

Yeap they are still in there. What about base infiltration that isn't centred around destroying buildings? Infiltrators become rewarding classes to play and helpful to the team without being absolute in terms of risk/reward. For instance. An infiltrator that successfully infiltrates a WF can "hack" a purchase terminal which makes a GDI vehicle available to build at the air-stip for a short time. This could be randomised or maybe the infiltrator could select the desired vehicle but the more powerful it is the longer the hack takes (a mammoth taking far longer than an humvee) Hacking the power plant temporarily disables base defences. Hacking the ref halves income for the enemy team for a short while. Hacking the barracks is similar to the WF hack but for infantry. It'd be great if when an infiltrator is hacking it is announced to their team that the hack is under way, giving them a chance to react to incoming change. "Hacking the powerplant, base defences going dark.......hack successful!" I feel the above could encourage communication and cooperation between the team mates, make infiltrator classes fun and useful to play without being all or nothing and could maybe help mix up stalemates a little.

I just wanted to chime in. I think team stacking can be a real issue. But after a series of games last night (some of which were well fought, others a push over) where every round ended with a deluge of moaning from a couple of people about stacking and "arrogance" I wanted to say. Sometimes teams win because they played well, sometimes you lost because you were unlucky. Complaining every time you lose as though there is some grand conspiracy amongst elite players to ruin your day just makes for a toxic atmosphere and doesn't allow for any constructive discourse.

I (mostly) agree with you but I find that people really aren't using them to their full capabilities. To me the problem with SBH is that people think they are super weapons, there's a mentality that the SBH is only for "le epic infiltration" and that unless you can solo the barracks with one you just have to keep waiting around. They work more consistently as ambushers and saboteurs (especially with CQC). In the field their anti-sniper role is great and picking off a column of GDI tank repairs has a huge benefit to the team. With a repair tool they can keep a dominant GDI frantically running around trying to stay on top of their tech buildings and groups of SBH make good anti-tank ambushers. For me if I was retooling the SBH I would look to nudge them more towards that saboteur role and away from the infiltrator (I agree spies would be a better fit there) I'd maybe remove the timed C4 and give them a timed EMP or something that can be placed strategically, maybe give them a radar grenade that acts as a smaller scale spy plane.

I will.never forget the time a light solo'd my mammoth by ramming into me and staying under my minimum range/ahead of my turning speed. I was pissed but impressed. Lights are my favourite vehicle in the game and it sounds like you're using them right.

I love this idea. I'd see something like this being a much better version of the various suicide/scrin crates. Rather than just "BLEP FUCK YOU DEAD" You at least have a chance to fight back or run away.

I'm not sure exactly how rank is calculated, but would it be possible to shuffle teams based on it? I understand that's not a perfect solution but it could help.

KANE LIVES

I mean, you just proclaiming it a well known phenomenon doesn't make it so. My point is that for every gigantic overnight success one comes across, there is a large untold story of very conscious direct work. Games that are incredibly successful are also good games does not mean that all good games are successful. You have to put a lot of work into community development, business development and advertisement. Word of mouth is important and can be a huge boon but relying on it to propel you to success is problematic in my experience. It is pretty rich of you to make such a sweeping truism when you then go on to accuse me of making strawman arguments You can't just label something a strawman without actually addressing why the argument is fallacious and then stride off as though you job is done. This in itself is what is called an fallacy fallacy. Besides I don't think I'm misrepresenting your point. I'm saying that the expectation that word of mouth alone can sustain itself seems erroneous. My assertion is that word of mouth general requires a lot of conscious effort to build and sustain. I can totally agree with the rest of the post. I apologise for coming on strong. Self importance is never a good look. Itis always worth listening to everyone's point of view and giving it it's due. Old ren players who prefer old ren styles are more than entitled to their point of view and valuable insights can be learned from them, I never meant to suggest otherwise. It's just that RenX has deliberately strayed from the Ren mould and imo it is all for the better. Discourse and debate is great but at some point the people steering the ship have the right to say "no" and which point one has to choose if they get on board or disembark.

Now that's what I call a ramjet

The only character that needs to be added right now.

I like the idea, though my one reservation is how it might affect stealth checking on smaller maps. Checking with a tank cannon is less effective than with a machine gun and this could make it a lot harder to sneak past tanks in the field. Could though, take that with a huge pinch of salt, it's a maybe even I don't think would be true but I'd want to see it play tested to confirm.

That is just not true, sorry. It doesn't matter how good your game might be, you can't expect word of mouth to just happen and then rely on it to propel you to success. Occasionally word of mouth success stories do happen, but they are rare, and more often than not obfuscate the amount of marketing and work that went into constructing that "organic" word of mouth in the first place. The most confusing thing about your self quote though, is that it seems to be advocating and approach of trying to please everyone. That doesn't work. Anyone who has tried and kind of creative endeavour will tell you that if you try and please everyone, you end up with a mediocre mess. The best approach is to identify your audience and build a great experience for them. The problem with the heels dug in OldRen types (and I hasten to point out I'm not saying all OldRen players are like that, I am directly referring to the ones who are intractable) is their aims are diametrically opposed to the wants of the RenX core player base, and I would argue, any new players (It's fascinating to me how many people actually play RenX who never played OldRen) You can't appease one without upsetting the other. Adding a mutator as a nice nod to nostalgia is awesome, but you can't take a backwards facing view when thinking about the future, and you can't split your player base to appease a small number of people who will likely never come round anyway. Jesus, no, just, no. I've talked about how their wants are diametrically opposed to begin with, and how splitting the player base is a bad idea for games with millions of players let alone one with 80. But rewarding aggressive, toxic, entitled behaviour and malicious attacks with acquiescence, and an apology? That would set an awful example and is frankly, barmy.

That's a bit melodramatic, c'mon.

That's a good trick.