Tytonium

Never remove the 64 player maximum limit. That sense of chaos, randomness, and downright ridiculousness/fast paced action cannot be found at the same levels in 40 player servers compared to 64. In fact I get lonely when the player counts drop below 40 and usually quit for the day once it is below that point. It is why I think the game is best when on a 64 player count Daybreak/Deso/Lake/Steppe. You can't beat that. Islands kinda sucks Under sucks Field super sucks Canyon unbalanced Volcano UnBaLaNcEd Whiteout? More like...ARTILLERY READY Never want to play those maps again but democracy gets in the way of that. O̷̢̢̩̭̰͇͓͈̜̭͓͇̊͛͜ņ̸̢͚̩̼̬͎̼̥̤̭̩̟̫͚̍̈́͑́͗͘e̵̠̯̦̱̝͇͎̜̣͙͆̈́̎́͑ͅ ̸̝̪͕͈͉̈́d̴̮͈̗̭͉̓̒̈́͐́͌̇̚ą̷̧͓͙̭̟̣̗͔̰͎̠̜̈́̇̇̔̅̏͘ẙ̶̫̠̦̤̊̈́̈́͠ ̶̟̟̠̬͎̟͉̘̠̣̫̞̹̔̐̇͠Į̸̡̧͇̱̬̦͓͈̐̄͐̈͗̔͋̆̃̓͌̕̚͝ ̸̧̡̛̟͈͖̮̯̤͉͖̣̤̞̆̀̆͌̉̄̋͋̉͜͝s̸̙̲̼̘̝̺͛̂ḩ̸̙͎̙̬̾̀͆͑ą̵̘͈̭͕̼̲̬̟̻̜̣̊́́̅͌̽̓̈́̽̽͘͘͜͝l̸͉̒̓͂̆̓̀̓͐͝l̴̡̳͓̙͉̣͉͓̣͚̥͕̣̿̒̍̓̅͒͐̂̈̓͝͝ ̶̼̩͙̬͎̜̇̍͌̂̓̆̽́͛̓̔̆̿́̚ͅr̶̤̩͙͉̬͕͉̝̰̘͈͇̱͒̕u̸̧̼̭͍͋́̎͋ḷ̶̣͙̦͔̏̂̄̓̾̂̄͘͝ę̷̨̛̛̦̥̭̮̗̻̳͓͕̺͚̞̑̀͋̅̏͑̂͐͘̕͘ ̶̺̉̑̽̿̓̆̈́̀̅̕̕̚͘͝͝ǫ̶͔̟̗͕̞̱͔͈̰̟̳̲͛͗͜v̸̪͚̗̬͗͑̿̀̊̌̔̒̂̈͝͠ĕ̴̤͖̘̦̘̂r̶̗̟̱̦̟̰̼̥͍͚͛̓́̒͆̄̉̈́͜ ̸̨̡͚̻̤͉̠͚̪̳̯̲̫͂̈̌̔̓̐̈̂̄͜͠ȧ̸̢̢̻̝̘̈́̂̋̍̿̚̚ľ̴̢̩̱̯̥͚̩̳̖͕̝̝̲ḻ̴̱͌̃͌̓̍́͆̎̃́͠͠ ̸̨̠̲͓̹̞̠̯̃͗̏͋̾̆̃̂̃̆͘͘d̵̛̟̤͎̬̠̮͇͆̌̈͋̽̿̓̂̕͝e̵̛͇̪̗͈̞͍̙̞͈̝͋̎̀c̸͖͇̻̤̃͐̃̊́͒̐̈́̉͂͆i̵̛̹͋͋͛s̴̛͍̥̙̦̘̲̚ͅḯ̵̞̜͙̘̫̫̪͉͂̂͂̂̓̑̿͝͠ö̸̧͔̬͈͎͎͖͖̠͎̤͈́́͆͗̽̒̓͋͗̆̚̕n̸̢̧̛͓̋s̵͔̝͚̳̀͝͝͝

N̶͔̎o̷̥̽ ̵̙̅G̷̥̿o̶̮͒d̵̩̉s̴̺̍ ̴̙͑Ň̶̺ò̶̡ ̵̙͆M̸̭̎å̸̮s̷͖̉t̶̞͊e̶͓͗r̸͓̀s̴̲̅

You both need to be careful about such pronounced hate of Stealth Black Hands. Ț̶͎͈̙̳͈̺͉̗̻̔͐̃͜ȟ̶̨̟̇ë̴̛̛̛̮̱̖̣͎͍̠͕̫́̀̿͂̎̅̋́̽̑ý̵̲͔̱̣̥͓̰̜̙̹̩͇̌̀̉̒̈́́͐̐̎̽́̚̚͝ ̵̢̲̮͖̱̞̝̹͍̫͙̍̓̒̃̊͛́̈́͋̌͛̒̚͘ą̴̢͖͍̱̮̯͚͚̼̘̩̭̿́͂̈́́̌̄͑̿̚͘͠r̵̢̢̖̗̯̱͈̤̺̪̖̥̈́̾̋̓̈́̾́͗͊̀̿ė̸̞̭̼̯͙̱͖̣̫ͅ/ẃ̵̨̡̛̙̺̟͖̤̭̻̖̳̖͇̪̫͐̊̈́̓̐̏̿̽̔̿̾̑̓̂̔͛̀͐̒̄̾̈́̍̓̆̏͂͗̈́̊̃̓́́̆̍̄͆̏̔̌̍̄͑̍̈́̒̓̒̋͛́̓̋̋̈́̈́́̂̉́̾̅͂̈́̂̄͒̇̂͌͗̒͐̆̓́̀͋̄̽̊̐̍̎̈́̑͐͘̕̚̕̕͘̕͜͠͝͝͠͝a̷̧̧̢̨̨̛̭̥̻̖̠̬͓͉̱̝̮̪̲̹͓̗̰̱̫̙̱̩̮̹̹̼̺̼͎̖͕̰̩͈̫̲̐̈͌̅̈͑̈́̋̊͂̃̐̏̾̎͂̇̊̉̈̍́́̅̀̋̑̑̈́̀̃̈́̋̐̎͆͑̓͌͋̔́͑͆̌͋͐̆̽͆͆̃͐̃̓̋͒͗̄͆͐́̽́̋͛͒̌͒͊͑̍̿͂̆̉̏̋̽̓͗̂̈́̐͗̿́̓̎͂͒͗̾̓͑̅͆̑̈͋̌̎̀̾́̆͋̾̀́́͂͌̎̍̕̚͘̕̚̕͝͝͝͠ͅt̵̡̢̛̫̗̬̯̼̹͉͚͇͔̱̞̙̙͔̹͓̣͖̰͎̱̹̟͈̗̙̭̬̪͇͍͓̜͙̠̝̗̦̖̋̔̒̉̀̈́́̀͌̊̎͊̑̅͐͛̏̋̋͛͐͑̃̊͌́̅͗̇̒͒͐͆͐̀́̂̍̑̅́̆̅̄̀͛̅́̏͛̀͒̎̑̓͒̽͐̾̆̅̓͗̾̎̾̃̀̑̓́͒̎̓͊̀̐̾̍̂͗͆̂̋̿̿͂̚̚̚͜͝͝͝͠͝͝ͅç̷̡͔̩̮͍̗͙̟̫͙̱̯͖͖̼̟̙̍̓̉̀͑͌͐̈͗̀̏̈͌̔́͛́̂͌͂́̔͋͒́̄͋͊͛̾̿͌̎̅̍̍͛̂̏͒͒̄̓̾͐̀͊̈̇̏͗̏̑̃͑̾͛̋̈́͋̐̒̍̉̂̄̿̐̽̃͂̓́̅͐̈́̄̒͆̓̇̄̿͌̅͌͒̂̀̃̍̃̕̚͜͝͝͝͝ḩ̶̡̡̧̧̢̧̧̡̢̨̢̨̧̛̱̦͇̪͎͍̞͚̪̯͈͉̖̲̪̫͚͙̫͕̱̝̦̯͍̫͔͈͕͉͍͈̜̠̟̫͖̱̯̟̝̦͓̪̼̗̬̗͙̼̟̗͈̝̱̠͇̜͙͚̬̠͉̤͚̙̪̳͎̟̘̪̥̞̬͚͈̖̲͉͙̮͈͈̯̗͖͍̟̟̬͉̂̈́̐͋͊̄̈́̅̏̓̆̌̎̈́̌͂̓͐̾͂̈́̏̎̋͗͌̿̇̈́̈͑̇̉̐̒̐̊͗̾͌͋̔̒̈́͗̀͑͆̈͆̍͊̏̉̌͆̈́͋̎͑̀̽̍̓̌́̈́́̈̅̀̓̈́̀̃̃̔̂̑͆̓͐̀̓̈̒͑͆̈́̆͐̿̊̉̑̾̇͂̓̓͗̄́̂̐̏͛͌͛̀̐́͗͘͘̕̚͝͠ͅͅͅī̷̢̧̨̧̢̡̛̛̛̛̛̛̤̤̤͇͙̥̥͎̜̦̦̻̙̩̭͇̫̥̟̦͉̖̥͍̫̱͉̩̤̯̣͓̣̙̘̦̖͚̞̺̻͖̫̘͙̭̗̦̤̘̮̤̭̠̮̰͈̟̞̖̞̻̰̫̜̦̯̼͕͙̹̰̦͔̰̰̰̠̝̤̙̜͇̖̝͙͎̘̠̗̗̻̘͔̈͐̌̉͐̔̈͊͑̊͒̇̍̅͊̀̀̃̍͛̇̅̔̅̈́́̐̓̋̈̈̒̆͐̒̆̆̂͑͑̌͐̈͋͌̄̊̌̋͐͂͋̂͌̀̉̔̽͊̆̊͂͛̃̇̽̇̾̓̈́͛̿͑́̇̈́͒̒̐̌̅̏̊͊̐̎͗̎̀͂͌̅̅̿̀̍̋̈́̊͋̌̅̊̄̉̎̅̏͊̋͒͂̍̈̌̍͆̎͛̏̒̚̚̚̚̚̚͘̕̚̕͜͜͜͝͝͠͝͝͝͝͠ͅͅͅn̵̢̧̨̡̧̧̢̧̨̫̺̥͙͓̖̰͙̰͖̣̹͓̻̟͈̰̘̳̺̠̹̭̹̬͔̼͉̣̳̙̤̣̮͕̭̺̺̺̣̤͆͐́̐̾̑͒͐̾͌̀͆͑̽̈́̾͗̍̆͒̓̍͂̈́́͛͐̆̿̉̇̿̽̎̃͊̓͗̊̋̃̚͘͘͜͠͠͠͝ǵ̶̢̡̨̨̨̢̢̢̡͎̯̺̘̩̤̫͓͙̝̱͈̣͉̲̤̹̝̺̘̝̖̗͙̟̲̤̟͚͔͕̹̟̻̻̘͔̥̟͔̟̣̗͙̦͕͇͍̘̺̭̬̦̺̺̼̠͓̥̦̬̖͓͔̖͔̯̲̪̬̥̦̱̹͓̭̞̪̖͔̙̥̠̠͓̟̲̠̬̾̓͘͜͜͝͝ͅͅ

I think if SBH were able to just regen health and not armor that would be pretty cool. I can't tell u the amount of times I have accidentally fell off a 5 foot drop and taken fall damage, leaving me with less than 51 health and stranded in the middle of a firefight completely exposed and utterly screwed. I don't think being able to regen armor would be fair though, as a single SBH without a rep gun could slowly whittle away at mines in a building without ever having to uncloak. If a sbh only regened health, they cannot just tank mines repeatedly and would need to carry a rep gun.

I've always thought that being able to heal infantry health and armor with a rep gun is kinda strange. I mean armor sure, but if you have a gun capable of healing broken bones and severe bullet wounds you just solved literally every medical problem in the world. I don't think rep guns should heal health. Go get a refill or a health pickup.

Dude, there's only 4 maps that I actually like in this game anymore. Daybreak- funnest vehicle combat Lakeside- for D̵̳͉͇̘̱̜̯̪͓̭̹̑̌̀͊̈́̏̔̀͆̿͌͜ͅr̵̨͍̦̈̉̓͂̈́̒͝ë̵̡̧̡̗̦̬̘̠̦̳̠̝͖͙́̐̆̈́̄̓̋̾͝ả̶̡̧̡͚̦̲͚̟̥͎̼̟̆̈́̔̍͑̚͘ḏ̴̡̲̫͂̃̀́͗͌̈́͑́̅̒͆̀e̶̬̜͝d̷͇̲̳̗͆̿͌͐͑̈́͑̅̋̾͑͑͐͝ ̶͇̮̠̦͓͖͙̙̦̓͗̐͆̽̚͘͝C̷͎̑̔̎̈̄͝a̵̯̙̙̠̹̱̎̓̈́̎̓̊͝͝ṿ̷̢̛̻̜̟̄̏͌̉̔͐͒̋̓̂̐̾̅͒ẹ̷̦͚̟̭̼̓̑̓̿̔̽̀͐̈́͜ ̵̡̡̨̘̺͚̪̼̺͖̪̹̟͛̽͒̽A̸̯̤̬͉̬͍̦̗̖̬̲̥͐͝p̴̟̓̎̿͊̑͒͌̍̈́͑͗͘á̸͈͈͇͖͍̦̣̋̂c̷̠͔͖͗̈́̅́̅̓̇͋̔̄̀͋h̵̡̤̜̾͑̋̈́̔̏̌́̈́͠ȩ̴̨̮̲̳͉͚̮̫͓͒̋͐͛̀̏s̵̮͉̈́̋̔͒͑̎̽͗́̌ Desolation- Because it is one of the rare examples of a map with a fun vehicle path and infantry path. Plus no one side has a major advantage. Some of the funnest matches in latest memory have been on Desolation. PLUS LASER FENCES THAT DRAIN THE POWER BILL! Steppe- The one match I did play of it was incredible and I want to see more of it immensely. I am absolutely sick of the usual RenX map rotation being Field-Walls-Islands-Field-Under-Under-Field-Islands-Field. You breathe new life into this game and it needs it. The developers and you should really be coordinating to introduce your map in one of their major updates that way everyone will have the map. But if you wanna take a break, I can't blame you, but just know that the majority of players will probably agree with me in the fact that we want new great maps, but are unable to play them in matches due to server admins, and the worlds slowest download times. As with other players goodbyes, here is your complimentary Renegade X vacation meme package. Unlike other players packages, I hope to see you soon.

My one contribution

Hell yes it should be allowed and even implored! It is the absolutely most powerful tactic in Renegade X to be able to pull off. It has only two downsides, and they are big ones, time and manpower. It is the most powerful means to break stalemates in this game when all else fails, and can be used in both defensive and offensive positions, and both are a fair means to break a stalemate. In a defensive position, the commander must sacrifice time in order to gather the cp to initiate this strategy, and time is usually against the defending team. Any little slip up can result in a building lost and a quick GG/BG on most matches. If however the commander of the losing teams decides to save cp while also managing to fight of the offending team, there is no one to blame but the offending team for doing a shit job at being... offensive. Then of course the commander of the losing team must find the right opportunity to use this strategy in an effective means. Rushing means less people being able to defend. So if a team with a competent commander is able to fight off the enemy for a long enough time without the help of cp, while also managing to gather a good majority of the team for a rush without the defense collapsing, while ALSO being able to fight their way to the enemy base with the enemy controlling the map (usually the infantry path), and above all actually being able to get both buffs off in an effective way that actually manages to destroy a building, I would say they have absolutely earned it. Point being the offensive team should have done more, and they have no one to blame but themselves for being unable to defend and offend properly as a team, especially given the fact they were winning. On the other side of the coin I also see it as being fair to use this strategy for the offensive team as a means of breaking a stalemate. Sometimes the defensive team will use scummy tactics to defend as a last resort (arty/mrls spamming tuns, bitch mines, c4 traps, T-posing snipers headglitching to show their dominance, etc...). So if an offensive team is able to maintain their offensive and lock an enemy team in base while also not using cp to help them, they deserve to use that cp in order to give them an overwhelming edge for a rush. Point being that the defensive team should have been able to break out while the offensive team was not using cp, and especially while the offensive team was gathering for a rush. The defending team have no one to blame for their defeat but themselves for their inability to push out. I believe it is a completely fair tactic to use, and one that is filled with MAJOR downsides. If however it is pulled off successfully, it is because the enemy team and their commander did bad and were not defending/offending properly. At the end of the day both teams are able to use this tactic if they so choose, but it takes a bit of luck in relying on your enemy to be ineffective in battle, and that is what makes this strategy a sort of gambit in a way. It is up to the commander to decide whether or not the risk is worth it.

I say just make respawn times the same for everyone, but the respawn timer increases as the total match time increases, up to a max of maybe like 15-20 seconds or something after an hour of playing.

It would be so freaking dope if we could pick our own personal color of SBH, LCG, and mobious weapon colors. I get that could be confusing so I would make it so that the colors only apply at Heroic Rank. Cmon, you know you wanna have a squad of SBH with one each having a different color of a rainbow.

Do: Shpetim Euan Kira or else I send Krampus after you

I fucking hate mirage tanks.

That is a very intriguing idea, and I like it. It would certainly be interesting to see how matches play out with a system in place like this.

I suppose I spent a bit too much time on that topic. You are all absolutely correct. There is a snowballing effect in this game, but it typically happens during the mid-game. The early game though is really just a sort of all out anarchy type of situation for both teams. Maybe kill the harv, or take a silo or course, but in the early game players will get the majority of their points from just killing other people. That essentially stops at about 5 minutes and the mid-game starts, and that is where the snowballing begins. My stats deal with the early game pretty much entirely and allow for you to predict the chances of success. So in essence, I can figure out if the teams are notably unbalanced due to one team being higher on the scoreboard (indicating one team is overwhelmingly better than the other by sheer skill in infantry combat, and usually this will mean all forms of combat and better game sense). Now this issue CAN be resolved if a proper balancing method is found and implemented. I absolutely understand that this game helps the winning team along during the mid-game and can lead to an easier time achieving victory, and I am fine with that. The mid-game is often times my favorite part of a match. What I do have a problem with is the fact that a game is essentially over in about 3-5 minutes just by looking at the scoreboard. "Oh look at that, NOD is overwhelmingly at the top of the scoreboard and it has been 4 minutes! Looks like I have roughly a 7% of winning this game, very nic- GDI INFANTRY BARRACK DESTROYED" I dunno, I just feel like something can be done to make matches more balanced for a bit longer if the teams are balanced properly. Eventually one team will always get the upper hand, but having one team be inherently advantaged (having better players) at beginning of the match is a bit saddening.

The Current State of Renegade X’s Balance by: Tytonium HEY YOU! Yeah you. You like Renegade X? Well of course you do you are browsing the forums you degenerate. Perhaps you are like me and enjoy Renegade X more so than any other multiplayer game. With its unique style of game play pretty much seen nowhere else (or at least not executed as flawlessly), Renegade X is a shining gem among games. However, beneath Renegade X’s amazing exterior lies a problem. Perhaps you have felt it too during your time playing. And no I’m not just talking about the little baby bitch mines that people can place in the Hand of Nod that go invisible and always end up killing me. No, I am talking to you today about balancing issues in Renegade X. I put a ton of work and 3 months of time and effort into collecting this data and drawing conclusions from it. So I would absolutely appreciate a tiny bit of your time to check out this major issue I am going to highlight with my statistics and MATH! Read over the section of my method, and then you can skip to the picture of the cat IF you are just a normal player and want to see the conclusions without going into too much detail of the actual statistics. However, if you are an avid member of the community or a developer, I implore you to read through all of this in order to understand how I got to my conclusions. So sit on back, grab a cup of coffee, pour some godforsaken rum in that cup, and let’s get into this monstrosity. Method So in case you didn’t know, I have been collecting statistics for this game for quite some time now. I started nearly a year ago, but I ended up getting too drunk for my own good, and kind of ruined the statistics with forgetting to add key data points and showing truthful statistics. So… I restarted about 3 months ago. The following statistics have been gathered over the course of exactly 3 months, from September 14, all the way to December 14. The statistics I gathered dealt with a predicted winning team’s chance of winning past the 5 minute mark in the game. So essentially, for my statistics, at the 5-minute mark of the game, I would look at the scoreboard by pressing “k” and seeing which team, if any, was predominantly near the top of the scoreboard. The team that was more on top, became the “predicted winning team” and the other team was the “predicted loser”. I did it in this manner because that would allow for an easy implementation of binomial distribution, and binomial distribution is the sexiest. I promise I did this in the fairest way possible. If say 7 Nod people were in the top 10 at the 5-minute mark, then Nod was the predicted winner. If 4 Nod people were in the top 10, but an overwhelming amount of Nod people were ahead of GDI in the scoreboard, (AKA GDI full of newbs and like 75% of the team makes up the bottom half of the scoreboard) then Nod is still the predicted winner. If however, the scoreboard was quite balanced and neither team seems to be winning at 5 minutes, then the game is “balanced”. I will say this if you are thinking this is a bit too subjective of a stat gathering method, it was really, REALLY, easy to tell which team was predominantly in the scoreboard on nearly all matches. I think this method worked out just fine in the end. Requirements for Data to Count I put together some conditions that must be met in order for a match to be logged. This is so I can’t just log 10 matches back to back when the player count is at 20 and one team is stacking because everyone wants to play with their friends. So here are the conditions: 1. Player count must be above 40 throughout the entirety of the match. No sense doing these statistics in anything less than what is considered an actual game with a proper amount of players. 2. Player count must remain relatively the same. If say 1-8 people end up joining I think that is fair, or if 1-8 people end up leaving, same still. But if you start a match with 40 people and end it with 64, will now that tampers with the data too much. 3. No Oasis, Snow, or Snow X allowed. Sorry to those map makers, but they just aren’t really suited for 40-64 players at all. It’s always a clusterfuck and some shitty rocket rush usually ends each match. 4. Match doesn’t count if some unusual factor I couldn’t have planned for happens. Like someone glitching a nuke on a building’s roof when they can’t get there. Server crashing. There being like 10 afk players for the first 10 mins, etc… General Observations So before we get into the actual statistics I just want to write about what I saw during these matches to explain away some of the results. · “Balanced” Games were always the funnest to play, but they were rare. When both teams are going at it with all their ferocity and the best commander is picked on both teams, that is when RenX is at its best. · Whenever the “predicted losing team” ends up stealing a win, it can be one of 4 things that caused it in my opinion. A super duper lucky tech/hotty sneak, a super good commander appeared on the losing team that ends up essentially winning the game, a god-tier player shows up and takes the inf path single handedly, Or the winning team is just very uncoordinated or has a commander that doesn’t make plans whatsoever, or just has really bad plans. This is why I added in another stat, that being if the match went on for over 60 mins when the losing team steals the win and no progress was made in the first 60 mins by either team, as this indicates that the winning team probably fucked up since they couldn’t mount a successful offensive. · I split up the stats into 2 sections. FIELD, UNDER, AND ISLANDS are in their own separate category. I did this because I feel as though these maps in particular usually result in stagnant matches. Essentially the one thing these matches have in common is the inf path is a complete cluster fuck with vehicles being able to single-handedly stop infantry rushes, and this causes the games to become long and drawn out with neither team being able to truly rush in an effective manner even despite being way better. (AKA arty/MRLS spamming tunnels makes me wanna barf). On all other maps it is a lot harder to do that amount of spam that stops infantry rushes. The Data FOR FIELD, UNDER, AND ISLANDS ONLY Total matches: n=30 Winning team won: 25 Winning team lost: 2 did this match go on for 60 minutes with no progress? 2/2 Balanced game: 3 FOR ALL OTHER MAPS EXCLUDING FIELD, UNDER, AND ISLANDS Total matches: n=77 Winning team won: 68 Winning team lost: 5 go on for 60 mins without any progress? 2/5 Balanced game: 4 This may not look like much, but we can do quite a bit of things with this data set. Showing My Work You can skip past this if you want to the cat picture. I’m just showing how I got my conclusions. Essentially for each data set I did 2 binomial distributions. One for which matches were “interesting” which was balanced and where the losing team won, and another for just “balanced” matches. So for example for interesting matches in Field, Under, and Islands. N=30 P(x) aka probability of success. Success = the match being interesting P(x) = 5/30 = .1666666 Not doing this shit by hand, used a calculator for bidistr. BinomialCDF(30,.166666,X=0:10) This will give the percentage chance that this number ____ of matches are interesting in a set of 30 matches. Then I add up the matches from 0-X where X equals a match number where approximately 99% of all matches will fall in between. So if you do this correctly you can say that you can be 99% confident that 0-X matches will be interesting out of 30 total. You can also turn 0-X matches into a percentage by taking X/n so you get a percentage of how many matches are interesting or balanced in those certain maps. Doing this we get that UIF (Under Island Field) – interesting = .33 (AKA 33 percent of all games means X equaled 10. So that means that 0-10 games make up a 99% confidence level that this is how many games would be interesting out of 30. So then take 10/30 = .3333 games are interesting if my data is not a horrible fluke. UIF balanced = .2333 All others Interesting = .1948 All other balanced = .1299 Look at this good boy. So polite. CONCLUSIONS WE CAN DRAW After doing all the fun stats we can draw some conclusions on game balance. FOR UNDER ISLANDS AND FIELD ONLY We can be 99.3255% sure that essentially 33% or a third of all games played on Islands, Field, and Under, HAVE THE POTENTIAL to be interesting and not just a one-sided stomp. Notice it HAS POTENTIAL. So this certainly does not mean that a third of all games are interesting in some way. It means at a maximum it is one third if the stars aligned perfectly. I’ll show a graph in the next conclusion as it is more important since it deals with balancing. We can be 99.2216% confident that AT MOST 23.33% or essentially a quarter of all games have THE POTENTIAL to be balanced on Under, Islands, and Field. Here is a graph to help you better picture what this means. We essentially have turned binomial distribution into a normal distribution bar graph. FOR ALL MAPS EXCLUDING UNDER ISLANDS AND FIELD We can be 98.4611% sure that only a maximum of 19.48% of all matches have THE POTENTIAL to be interesting on all other maps besides UIF. Here’s a real kicker. We can be 99.7928% sure that only a maximum of 12.99% of all matches HAVE THE POTENTIAL to be BALANCED on all other maps besides UIF. Here is a graph to visualize this. Some other fun things we can do is to figure out if it is even worth trying to fight when you are on the losing team. Exclude balanced matches because it’s past the 5 min mark and you are losing. So for example, 2 loses / 27 matches = .074074 So IF MY DATA IS NOT A HORRIBLE FLUKE, well… On Under Islands and Field only, if you are losing at the 5 minute mark… you have a 7.41% chance of winning! Isn’t that GREAT! Similarly on any other map, if you are losing at the 5 minute mark, you have a 6.85% chance of winning that godforsaken match! Good luck buddy. I have to admit I was expecting a bigger difference between the two data sets. Because they are so similar I decided to go ahead and do the distributions for all the matches combined for INTERESTING matches, not balanced, as balance surely changes from those 3 maps compared to all the rest. N=107 P(x) = .1308 Binomialcdf (107,.1308,0,23) We can be 99.4645% sure that between 7 and 23 matches out of 107 total matches will be something other than a stomp. Or in other words: We can be 99.4645% sure that at a maximum, 21.50% of all matches have the potential to be something other than a stomp fest. Graph to help you visualize. Lastly If you are on the losing side of a match by the 5 minute mark, you have a 7% chance of winning that match on any given map. What to think? If it is not evident to you, there is a major problem with team balancing. Having this system of anarchy is not going to cut it as the overwhelming majority of matches can be seen as being over in the first 5 minutes as indicated by this data. So what is the point of playing if you are losing? You have a pretty good idea of how the story will end. Why do I think this is such a problem? A better question is just how important is balancing to the game? Well, Renegade X is a special case when it comes to multiplayer games. My issue with balancing and why I am making such a big deal about it is because BALANCING IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO PLAYER CHOICE AND THEREFORE HAS AN IMPACT ON MATCH ENJOYMENT. What other game is out there where doing bad as a team results in your options being limited? Sure, on most games doing bad as a team results in being limited to map control or being unable to get momentum based options (like kill streaks in call of duty). In Renegade X doing bad as a team results in severe map control loss (being locked in), and potentially losing buildings which completely cut off player choice in a severe way for the entirety of the rest of the match (like no infantry or vehicles. That is major!). My point is, the balancing of teams MUST be good, or nearly every match will be a complete and utter stomp where only one team has fun, and the other people are just left to suffer. I’m sure we have all thought about how to balance this game at some point or another, and I have noticed a team balancing mutator on FPI popped up recently. Didn’t really seem to have much of an impact though but I am curious as to what method it balances by. You need to answer this question in order to get balancing right: What is the biggest indicator of player skill in this game? Figure that out and you can balance the game. In my opinion the biggest indicator is the amount of time a player has been in game. I would much rather have experienced players on my team who knows what they are doing than really good fps players. I think balancing for time played would be something to try out if you haven’t already done it. You could go about requiring Steam for the game to be played but I don’t know what kind of problems that would bring with it. There just needs to be a way to track ALL player stats in my opinion so you can go about balancing through this method or another similar one. I am not a game developer I can merely do these relatively simple statistics to show you a problem and hopefully shed some more light on this issue which we all know has been in the game for quite some time. I really hope these stats can help in the development of this game, it’s the only multiplayer game I play anymore and all I want is for more matches to be fun. Whatever route you all end up taking to tackle this crippling issue, I wish you luck in your endeavors. If you have trouble figuring out a solution… just remember, Also fuck invisible HON mines

...When you forget that flaming with suicide bombing isn't allowed in public

Remember Flakeside?

Being a commander in this game can either lead to feeling immense gratification or complete and utter misery. You are expected to lead your entire team to victory, and no matter what the end result of the match is, people will blame the defeat or victory upon you. Believe me I hate that it is like that but it is the reality. I don't think it's fair to blame the commander a lot of the time because they are always limited by two things, their team and the map. There is only so much a commander can do for organized rushes that are viable during a match. So I'm sure you understand it probably isn't your fault if you are commanding a gdi team with infantry players that are not as good as NODs, and you end up losing on islands. There is only so much a shitty little rush down a narrow choke point filled tunnel is going to be able to get done, but I mean what other options do you have on Islands besides holding the field and hoping to God SBH's don't get away with something stupid. As a commander you have one job. You are the one that needs to decide IF you should rush, not when you should rush. It is your job to seek out a weakness in the enemy's defense and then construct a plan around it. Do not let team mates organize a rush just for the sake of rushing or defeat will be imminent. People might start getting angry at you for a supposed lack of command, but you can't give in to their demands for a rush that isn't going to work. Trust your guts commander, act on instinct, and do what YOU think will work. If your team doesn't help you do your rushes, then it is their defeat, not yours. I suppose the point of all of this is just ignore the angerous screaming people. Always realize what you can/could do to be better when commanding but also know when a defeat is not the result of your commanding. Also read the Art of War by Sun Tzu, a ton of stuff is absolutely relevant with commanding in this game.

Here's your complimentary RenX vacation video: Being killed by you is like:

There is nothing more fun in this game than when each team has lost a building. When you are on the losing team but still manage to somehow destroy a building through some ridiculous string of events that had no right working. As soon as this happens I know a real match is about to begin. Both teams suddenly start trying as hard as they can and commanders step up their game with more complicated rushes. It is no secret that the funnest games tend to be ones where the teams are balanced skill-wise and building-wise/option-wise. Unfortunately I am seeing very little of these types of matches these days. Give me some time and I can prove to the community that most matches are over in 5 minutes. I am doing some statistics that analyze just how likely it is to estimate which team will win at the 5-minute mark. I am at 67/100 matches. So just give me some more matches with a good player count and another month and we can all take a look at these stats. Let me just say this, from the stats that I have gathered so far, it is very very evident that there is a problem. But more on that at a later time.

All of this is sweet

I think the problem here is not beacon spam, it is unbalanced chokepointy map designed along with shoving way too many players into a certain selection of small maps. The only time beacon spam tends to be a problem is on Snow, Oasis, and Field. It's almost like 64 players weren't meant to be shoved into a map meant for smaller player counts. Just vote for bigger maps when you have a bigger player count and the problem disappears.

Alot of people say the flame trooper has become unbalanced because of the cqc mod. I don't really agree. Sure, the flame trooper will absofreakinglutely shred your HP in a second if you get near him, but your mistake was getting near the man with a flamethrower in the first place. The flame trooper shines at what he should be used for, extremely close quartered combat centered around ambushing your opponent. He is now capable of winning pretty much any engagement against tier 1 infantry provided you hit the majority of your fuel tank and are up close and personal. Above tier 1 inf, and you will likely have not killed your enemy provided they were at full health and you didn't hit every single fuel unit. This is the perfect balance for this infantry in my opinion. You are unsurpassed in close quarters combat against tier 1 inf and you need to avoid higher tiered inf unless they are already weakened. Above all else, I actually enjoy using flame troopers with this mod. I never used them before. On a side note the soldier infantry feels like heaven to use as well with this mod. In general, and after having given this mod some time, I think it is pretty much perfect. Just look at the before and after pictures of flamethowers, I think we can all agree it's a good change.

Had a weird glitch happen to me on Under where I went..... under.....the ground for a second and it counted that as out of bounds, but with no kill timer on the map it just gave me the no color filter. This would keep going even after I died so I got some cool screenshots of the map with it.

Oh what the crudspula. You're right! But my game disables it literally any time I enter into a match so I've never seen this stuff before, it also resets my graphics to normal instead of running it on ultra like I tell it too. No wonder my game has been nasty looking lately. Still despite my broken settings, I want blood and ashification of people killed by lazors