[Enhanced Targets of Value.]

If something was done with this system, I Think getting extra VP would be a good incentive to make a team go after this particular player.

[RenegadeX:Battle Royal]

Mind your tongue Kira!

What you say is

HERESY

[64 Player Count Cap]

2 hours ago, roweboat said:

Personally I think at 64 player count, this FPS-RTS hybrid loses most of it's strategy and just becomes an FPS slaughter fest.

Lower player caps allow for more strategy and more clever planning. 

Heck one of the best matches I played in recent memory was about 15v15.

NOT every point of the map should be covered at every second. It can be alot more thrilling.

And lonely? I don't buy that, if the map is that big. It should have wide open spaces. 

Not every renx experience should be a clusterf*ck like Snow.

On small maps I completely agree with you. That's why you will see me screaming and going ape-shit on the voting screen whenever I see Field match #46765 being voted for by 64 players.

But what about a map like daybreak? Or deso, eyes, steppe, or even Field X to some extent? Surely you find these matches to be much more enjoyable with a larger amount of players.

Having a server run with 64 players would give the people who want large all out matches what they want. It will also give those who desire smaller matches what the want at the beginning and later times of the server throughout the day when it begins populating and when it starts losing people to the night. On weekdays smaller matches are more commonplace anyways because of the smaller amount of players going at it.

I think the RTS style of game-play can always be present if both teams have voted a good commander, no matter the player count. Unless it's 64 Snow, then proceed to bash keyboard into face repeatedly.

[64 Player Count Cap]

44 minutes ago, Handepsilon said:

You forgot the fact that RenX uses single core performance. I can play a more recent game just fine, mind you

The engine itself is pretty much the biggest 'fat kid' here. 64 players is pretty much an unhealthy number for it. Sure you can upgrade your own rig, but you can't change the rig of the server you're playing or the limit of the engine itself

Well for me the game runs buttery smooth for the most part, and this holds true for others I am sure. If we got to a point where tanks were teleporting fifty feet every other dozen seconds and frames were dropping by the hundreds constantly, then yea maybe the game should scale some aspects back. Although at that point perhaps remaking the game into a large online multiplayer text adventure style zorg game would be the best idea.

But I do not think we are anywhere close to it being that bad. The game runs fine for me and many others, so why try and fix what isn't broken.

[Weird stutter and rubberbanding]

It's just a snow map related problem.

[64 Player Count Cap]

17 minutes ago, Cynthia said:

Performance wise 64 players is actually horrendous no matter on which machine played or which settings are used

I'm running a GTX 970 which is out of date compared to some of the things offered on the market today. I also live in the U.S. and consistently have around 160+ ping. Even with all of that, my game play is absolutely acceptable. I get a consistent 60 fps running high graphics at all points and times.

If your computer can't handle RenX at 64 players, I can't imagine it plays any game well. If you really want to game as a hobby you should give serious consideration to upgrading some of your specs. It isn't crazily expensive to get a rig going that will run this game fine. Just invest a couple hundred and you'll be able to do a ton of crazy things on your computer. Hit up newegg.com if you want to upgrade some aspects of your rig.

Anyways, I really don't think we should sacrifice game-play enjoyment and community involvement just for a small bit of players that have sub-optimal rigs. It's akin to being the fat kid on a hiking trip and demanding everyone else walk slower so that one kid can keep up. Don't get me wrong, if every kid is a fat kid and wants to go slower I'll quite down and hike elsewhere, but I am sure the majority of players want to keep what we have going for the time being.

[64 Player Count Cap]

1 hour ago, Madkill40 said:

It's a fucking amazing achievement to finally have 2 Servers going on ANY day so don't go degrading what a lot of effort members of the community put into encouraging an attempt at Server Runner-up #2 filling up. Ever.

Yea I saw some of that today. It was right after the PUG ended. The AllNoobs server was almost at max capacity (48), so the people getting off the PUG were forced to go populate a completely empty server. They got it up to about 24 players or so.

It quickly died in about 30 minutes and only about 10 people were left in that backup server afterwards.

This is on a Saturday, which is the most popular day for RenX no doubt. I wouldn't call it an accomplishment in this specific case that 2 servers were up and running because if the normal server was set to 64 players, one server would have sufficed to give everyone wanting to play RenX what the wanted.

I know this is a free game and I am grateful for it. It's the funnest multiplayer game that I have ever played. That's why I made this gigantic post along with other stuff as well, and I want this community to thrive as long as possible. I think it is in this communities best interest to populate large servers where everyone can have fun instead of filling up small divided servers where most people are unable to have fun.

1 hour ago, Madkill40 said:

Encouraging players to populate another server - I sometimes wonder what some of the playerbase think starts any of those servers up in the first place [i.e. somebody has to join 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc...]

That's another good reason to keep the player-base contained to one large server.

It takes a long, long time for players to fill up one server on a normal day. Now if we had double the players we normally have, and two servers were able to build up the player count at the same rate, running two servers would be a great idea.

However, in all practicality, one server will fill up at a time. A second server will require a vast amount of players to be started after one is already at max capacity.

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.

Less players would have the ability to enjoy the game while the community slowly fades.

[64 Player Count Cap]

15 minutes ago, TomUjain said:

I really really want 64 players, but...

The reality is it just does not work. As more and more patches are rolled out the harder and harder it is for this fossil of an engine to keep up. Lag, crashes and maps clearly not designed for that cap begin to become more and more apparent.

Unless we shift to a new engine that can handle that cap then all that will happen is you will be forced to take a bigger and bigger performance hit gameplay wise.

I would gladly sacrifice a bit of performance and the occasional crash for a funner experience. Honestly I'd probably quit playing the game entirely if all servers were capped to below 50. Just too lonely.

[64 Player Count Cap]

The past few days of RenX matches have been ruined in my opinion because of this test currently going on.

I completely understand what you all are trying to test, but I think the downsides that you get out of limiting server caps far out-way the upsides.

Here is every bit of proof that I can muster up to hopefully convince you that 64 player servers should be the standard.

 

Let's us start off with the pros that you get for limiting player count:

• Matches on small maps (e.g. Islands, Field, Under, canyon, tomb etc...) are balanced a bit more.
  • Infantry rushes are far less effective on those said maps.
  • Sneaking is easier to some extent and now a viable strategy.

That's all I can really think of for the pros.

Here are the cons I can think of:

• Matches on larger maps (e.g. daybreak, desolation, arctic, steppe, eyes, etc...) are ruined completely.
  • It is cripplingly lonely to walk around a large barren map in a game about all-out combat.
  • Beacons are overpowered on these large maps.
  • Sneaking is overpowered on these larger maps.
  • Using any type of rush that is practical will likely result in a win.
• Player counts are fluctuating like crazy.
  • 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.
• This system is not healthy for the community.
  • The devs would have the actual numbers, but I estimate that prime-time for RenX usually has up to 70-80 players wanting to play at the same time on a normal day.
    • A server with 64 players will only leave 6-16 people stranded from having fun, and the server will last much longer.
    • As server with 48 players will leave 22-32 players stranded in a separate server to be lonely and not have fun.
      • As discussed before, player counts will likely die off quicker on 2 low-populated servers as well.
  • Dividing a community as small as this one may speed up the process of its collapse.

Let's take a look at this photo here. This was taken 3 hours before the Saturday pug begins on 4/11/2020

So AllNoobs was at 48 players right before they switched to this islands match. It is likely the players got bored because it was getting a bit lonely and took off to do other things.

The other 6 people? Well screw them, they weren't able to get into the server when it was 48 players so they are forced to sit on the sidelines twiddling their thumbs waiting to have fun at a later time.

About 20 minutes later the 6 players were able to integrate into the AllNoobs server but the player count is not doing too well.

This photo was taken 1 hour and 40 minutes before the pug.

Normally at this time of day you could expect to see about 45-64 players on having a good time. But because of the smaller player caps, the servers cannot sustain themselves.

People get lonely with this player count stuff. They want more hectic battles... That server above just changed to Xmountain by the way. Here is another picture literally 5 minutes later...

Down to 33 players when it should be up in the 50's normally...

Here it is 1 hour and 27 minutes until the pug.

Note that I took all these pictures while in the process of writing this post.

64 Players should be the standard for this game. It gives way to larger scale battles where chaos rains supreme. RenX is at its best when teams are filled with large numbers of people going all out to win. With this new style of server player caps, that will be mostly absent. 

I know the servers owners are thinking about possibly making the new standard somewhere in the 50-60 range, but that will still be met with the same problems that the 48 player cap has been subjected too, just to a lesser but still present extent.

Again, I get what you are trying to do. Encourage smaller scale battles across multiple servers to accommodate more players. It will simply not work at this time for the game. We barely have enough players as it is, and the problem with not being able to join a server only occurs a couple hours each day. Why sacrifice the entire community being able to join a chaos filled 64 player fun-zone for a tiny bit better balanced Field match?

Also, at the current state of the game you will never be able to have 2 servers populated to 48 players, unless it is Saturday and the hive mind of RenX players decide to all play at the same time. Even still, having 2 full servers shall be a VERY RARE event.

One other little nit pick before I wrap all this rambling up: I found it interesting that in order to test this new player cap FPI, AllNoobs, and CT all had to join together to lower their player counts. Because you absolutely know, that if one server were to stay at 64 players, that would be the server that the players join for the day. That in and of itself should tell you something about what this community and its players want. You have an inclination to listen to them above all.

You want a solution? Make it so that small maps cannot be voted while above a certain player threshold. Field with 64 players does in fact suck more than if it were just 48 players. But coding something like that would make it so that you do not have to make an entire server for good field matches. If anything, I think a potentially interesting thing to test would be to increase the player count. Yea, raise that shiz up to like 80 and put the map on daybreak and see if it isn't the funnest most chaotic thing ever.

 

I implore you to keep a 64 player count cap as the standard for RenX for the time being. Until we get more players, the community should stick to one giant server so that everyone can have a good time. We also will not gain new players if the matches are boring, lonely, and sad.

Keep 64 because it is the best thing for this community, it keeps the most players around, it keeps the player base healthy, and mostly because it is pure chaotic fun.

-Tytonium

[Nod Obelisk Alt Fire Mode for Infantry]

Maybe you could make an obelisk attack on infantry do area of effect damage. This would make rushes straight into a base with an obelisk less viable, while also still allowing hotty sneaks.

[How to be a good commander?]

I find being a commander is akin to treading water while the rest of your team slowly tries to pull your head under.

So you have your work cut out for you if you want to be respected while also commanding to win. So... here is my patent pending guide to be a good commander.

Step 1: Assert your dominance.

There are many ways that you can show your team that you are a better person than they are, however I find the easiest way to do this is to insult them. As long as you can gain an undying loyalty oath from your men through the fear you instill in them from your existential speeches, you will function well as a team. After all, what is a team without a hierarchy of leadership.

 

Step 2: Eliminate heresy and your weakest links

If you are a relatively unknown commander, there will be those that challenge your decisions no matter what. Hash out any team resistance to your uprising of leadership by vote kicking any among your team that think of you as a usurper.

After your own team's weakest links have been slain, force your team to fill in the gaps in the battlefield they almost certainly have. People are 100% of the time without question more dumber than you, and you should seek to tell your team where they need to pick up the slack. If you find there are not enough infantry on the inf path to guard against a rush, spam commander messages and insult your team until they do as you command.

 

Step 3: Reap the souls of your enemy

If you have done everything above you are likely in a good spot to win!

If your team is not a completely hopeless pile of crap (and do note that 25% of the time it probably will be and there's nothing you can do to win, [ in which case you should insult them more along with insulting the enemy team in an effort to demoralize them ]) then you should get into a good position to rush. What is a good position to rush? Well, is there eight enemy tanks whoring vp on one of your buildings while infantry are camping your tunnel entrance to the inf path? If the answer is no, you can rush if you think it is a good time!

 

Step 4: Fail at rushing

Your team has been doing great! You have the field and infantry path. You call for a doza rush. Your team is so frightened of you that you get 12 dozas to show up for a rush. You go through the infantry path completely unnoticed, and BAM! you pop both buffs at the same time and..... everyone dies because one mrls was spamming the tunnels.

 

Step 5: Under and Field are bad for Renegade X's gameplay

Step 6: A sbh spy ioned your air while you rushed

Step 7: You lost field.

Step 8: Somehow, completely unknown to you, a gunner rush SNUCK TO YOUR PIPES AND KILLED YOUR REFINERY AND NO ONE SAW IT

Step 9: Your team surrenders and blames you

Step 10: You become demoralized and commit non-breathing

Morale of the story, don't command on Under, Field, Walls, or Islands. Chat with your team and know what's going on. Know IF you should rush, not just when. 

Watch the map, it's your most important tool.

[Feedback: suggestion for improving the VP system]

Do anything to cap the amount of vp a person spamming arty/mrls can get when attacking buildings. It's just too much vp compared to how little skill is needed to do such things.

[CNC-Steppe (preview)]

[ THIS POST WAS REMOVED ]

[Vote for your favourite custom map]

Daybreak is the best thing ever. That's all I voted for.

So many options for both teams.

So many sneak routes for NOD, but also incredibly easy to defend against with a perceptive GDI team.

Truly the only map that I think of that can actually hold 64 people without being ruined to some degree.

[Corona virus good for Renegade-X]

It's great isn't it.

The Renegade  population has gone up noticeably.

The modding communities for all sorts of games have been exploding recently

The infidels are being punished for their sins via pestilence.

And video games are doing wonderfully during this time.

Enjoy it while it lasts before society is re-established.

[Spy Plane]

You mean the scan for GDI? I remember talking about it yesterday and it seemed like a cool idea. Instead of looking like an idiot with a mobious spraying his lightning everywhere like some kind of autistic Thor the commander could scan a section of the base, and with a set of perceptive eyes, notice a shimmer.

[Commander Powers: RED ALERT!]

I like the idea.

A scale of how fucked the team is in their current situation.

The alert should add a colored filter to all team mates screens depending on what the alert is. That way I can give everyone a stroke for not playing well enough.

Y̶̙̣͌̄̄̿̌ò̵͓͐̂̏̿ų̸̣͓̀̾̕ ̴͖̮̈́̒͑͘͠ȇ̸̦̬̪̗̀̐ị̵̧̺͚̲͑̀̃͒̉̑ẗ̴̡͖̰͌̓͐̚h̴̗̯̱̳͈̙͐̇́̈́̈́͠e̷̙̬̯̦̻̔r̸̳̼̳̫̺͓͋̈́͂ ̷̰̇̿̍̒͝͝p̸̛̲͔̦̲̍͒̀̄l̵̻̝̝̭̻̒͌à̴͙̞͌͘͠͠͝y̶͔͙̙̘̼͕̿̋ ̸͕̽̽t̷̥̟̯͙͙̊̇ͅọ̸̾͘ ̷̦͇̤̭̉̀̕w̴͈̰̋̊͒̐ȉ̵̧̓͆́͠n̷̢̼̜̍́̾ͅ ̶̨͈̹̳̝̠̅͂͐̐̚͝ǒ̶͓͐̐͘r̸͚̞̭̮̜̞̂̓̊̂͑ ̵̳̲̯̔́̾̅̍n̶̟͖̫͚̰̈́̂͒̚͝ͅo̷̢̯̿̿t̸̘͈̝̻̀͗͒͒͗̅ ̵̱̌̈́a̵̘͖̲̦̭̔͌t̸̛͍̬̮̙ ̷̨̬͙̲̺̯͠ḁ̷̢̛̼̘͎͉͌͌̅͊l̴̛̙̭̥͇̥̄̒̿̚l̸͔̰͉̳̂̍

[This game is too balanced]

EZ fix for balance.

Remove Islands, Field, Canyon, Oasis, UNDER, and under from 50+ player rotation.

Result: A new era of peace in Renegade X history.

you fuckers

[Dead solider enemy pickups]

[Cannibal] We should be able to f̵e̷a̷s̸t̵ ̴o̷n̷ ̸t̸h̴e̵ ̶d̶e̶a̶d̸ ̵ć̶̡o̴̢͗r̵͔̆p̷͍͌ṣ̵́e̷͓͝ş̷́ ̸̳̏o̸͉̅f̸͛͜ ̵̨̌ȯ̷̺u̴͇͊ŕ̴̗ ̴̝͂ḙ̸͛n̸̛̯e̶̾ͅm̴̖̈́i̴̗͝e̴̡͐s̶̢̍t̶͙̾͗̌o̸̗̿̒̀ ̶̝̟͓̂ȑ̴͕͓̍e̷̟͕̫͐̓̌g̷̬̎̊̽͜å̶̯̹͔̅i̴̖̚ň̶͙͒̔ ̴͕́h̸̨̜̄͒̃ȩ̴̜̞̂͗͒a̶̼͆l̴̨͙̭̓t̶͎̞͇̊̈́ḣ̸̯͛

[Coronavirus - Assist the research with your PC]

I'm not really too worried about it and you shouldn't be either.

I'm willing to bet we are all going to get it because of its high infection rates and a good bit of countries have it spreading (including my own God blessed America). However the disease itself is nothing but a glorified flu. Look at the symptoms yourself. The people it kills are the very young and very old in under-developed nations. Media is eating this shit up, but it should really be of no concern to anyone. Flu's spread all the time.

[while next match loads... rate the last game. IDEA]

If you guys could implement a balancing system that gradually learns from the match ratings that'd be dope. Although because Under and Field are still in the game I have the lowest of expectations.

[It's time you saw the future!]

Does the future have Under?

I hope not.

[Can't Join Some Servers]

Ah, thanks. Patience is not my strongest suit

[Can't Join Some Servers]

Me: "Oh cool a new Renegade update! I can't wait to try it out!

Computer: "No I don't think I will"

 

Righty then, after this new update there are some servers I just cannot join.

I open the multiplayer tab and get my list of servers. I click join and nothing happens. The main menu keeps going as if I had clicked on nothing. No matter how many times I click on the server to join, it refuses to do anything. This is with only some servers though, as some work fine.

Works: CT Marathon, CT survival, Fairplay Marathon usa

Disobeys me and must be punished (doesn't work): GDI vs GDI, Team Deathmatch, Fairplay marathon UK

I have tried everything I can think of.

• Verify game files
• Re-install game
• Gave permission for all Renegade X files to do whatever they want on my PC
• Both 32 and 64 bit
• Default settings
• Launch with and without steam
• Insult computer

To no avail.

If I were to guess what the problem was, I think it has something to do with downloading server mutator files. Notice how all the servers I can't join have users download a few files before entering the server. I deleted my RenX files in program files 86 and re-installed the game. Then gave those files permission to do what they want. So I figured that would allow them to download the mutator files. But it does not appear to have worked.

What are your thoughts? Am I right in my assumption but didn't apply the right fix? Love to be able to test out some Steppe with 64 players.

Let me know if you need any hardware info or even a video of what my main menu does.

[The VR Project I;ve been working on.]

Great! I've personally done a load of DMT before so I'll fit right in here!

Also another play tester here (Oculus Rift)