Cheesemonk

When playing as a rocket officer, if my targeting reticle locks onto a tank that I do not want to shoot, I can still right click to fire the rocket straight. This is a useful ability and a great use of the alternate fire button. When using a stealth tank or MRLS the right click alternate fire is identical to the normal fire, and always shoots at a locked-on target. I would appreciate if those two tanks were given an alternate fire that ignored lock-on targets. In addition, the small dot in the middle of the targeting reticle disappears when a target is locked on. This is particularly annoying when trying to rocket officer against a guard tower while remaining out of its line of sight. It makes it more difficult to shoot the tower, and sometimes I miss and fire my rocket through the gap in the guard tower. I would prefer if the targeting dot remained even after obtaining a target lock. Just two small changes I think would improve the game slightly.

First, I don't really experience only playing 3-5 maps. I would say in my games a solid 10-12 maps are played, with 3-5 being rarely played because they suck. Second, while I am not against this idea, I fail to see how it would fix the supposed problem. Too few maps are played! lets binge a single map every Friday in a separate pug server? If It's a map nobody likes, nobody will join the pug... if its a map everyone likes, it will be binging one of your 3-5 maps even more.

Interesting. Thank you for correcting me. Is the MMR information tracked by steam account info? player name? IP address? or something else? Also, Is rating based on Win/Loss ratio, or player score?

If I remember correctly from other threads the main problem with implementing team balancing is that they do not currently have account login/information tracking. (please correct me devs if I am wrong about this) The current "team mmr" numbers are almost useless as they are exclusively based on previous games played THIS SESSION. the information is not saved if you close the program and start it up again. Furthermore, scaling individual player damage based on previous performance would incentivize players to play poorly in games they know are already lost, or play dud games where they do nothing useful, in order to receive a damage boost when they play a real game. As far as I am concerned, team balancing should be done correctly with a standard ELO rating system being implemented along with player accounts and long-term stat tracking. I am aware this is a lot of work to program, but I am willing to wait for it. I agree with this suggestion. some names have strange characters, start with a space, or are otherwise difficult to type. typing a unique part of the name like the !rec function or selecting from a list would be better. As for the new vote options: 1.) nobody wants to shuffle teams without restarting the map altogether, which is already a vote option. 2.) Personally I think it is dumb to play without killing buildings, even in small player matches. why take away the win condition and purpose of the entire game? Is the point to max out your veterancy, so you can feel like a good player and destroy players who join late? I would rather just vote to restart or change the map once enough new players join if the game is still dragging on. This being said, I am aware that some players prefer to play this way in low player games. I won't gripe about a vote option being added if it is the will of the other players. I will just always vote no. 3.) maybe? there are few enough maps in the pool, and enough vote options at the start of new matches that I don't think this is strictly necessary, but having additional options wouldn't hurt anything either. 4.) I have discussed banning Beacons in low player matches in other threads previously. As a personal Rule I do not buy beacons in games with less then 24 players. Having a vote option for this would be useful in my opinion.

I have a half finished word document with tips that i was planning on posting to the forums at some point. Stuff like buggies being able to drift by pressing the crouch button, "Q" targeting causing enemies to appear on the mini-map, and timed c4 having an infinite targeting range. even basic stuff like the upgrades veterancy gives you would be beneficial for new players. And I completely agree that loading tips would be an easy and useful thing to implement.

In it's simplest incarnation, Team-MMR is the average of the individual rating of all the players on a team. The computer would make a calculation of which team is more or less likely to win and how likely the predicted result is to be correct based on both team's MMR. For example: GDI has a slightly higher rating then Nod in a given game. the computer predicts GDI will win with a %56 probability. If GDI does win, all NOD players will lose a little bit of rating, and all GDI players will gain an equivalent amount of rating. If NOD wins, the less likely result, then the amount of rating points taken from the GDI players and given to the NOD players will be higher. It gets very complicated if you want to give different amounts of rating to players based on individual performance, not just win/loss record (or different ratings based on map, faction, role ect...); but this is unnecessary. the system will reach equilibrium and find ways to create close to %50 chance games as long as it has enough data on all the players. If you want to understand the math behind rating systems, check out the wiki page for the elo rating system used in chess, baseball, football, esports (LoL, Dota, Sc2...), and a host of other games. Since Renegade-X is a zero-sum game it would probably implement some form of the elo system, made slightly more complex by the number of players on each team, and the fact that the teams change every game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

1.) city flying 2.) walls 3.) lakeside 4.) eyes 5.) daybreak 6.) islands

I have mixed feelings on this idea. On the one hand, I have never liked the idea that damaging/repairing gives credits (even in the old REN). While it incentivizes aggression over stagnant play, it systematically is required to give more credits to the person doing the damage then the person repairing. (if the repairer got more credits the optimal economic strategy would be to never shoot anything you weren't sure you could kill.) This means that when I am sitting in base repairing the building that is being pounded, whoever is doing the pounding is earning more credits (and VP/Veterancy) then me, and the longer this goes on, the more of an economic lead the opposing team gains. So giving credits based on damage/repairing both increases the snowball effect of the winning team, making comebacks harder; and also incentivizes the winning team to keep the opponent base locked without attempting to finish them off, even if they know they cannot destroy whatever building they are pounding. Having objectives like harvesters and Tiberium silos that gives credits based on doing the work to capture and hold a location outside your base, or destroy/defend a vehicle allow for more mixed game-play. Sacrificing one objective to secure another (for example: let them have field, take the silo on the INF path). It gives an A-symmetric balance as well as more strategies available for a comeback. Your suggestion would allow for an additional method for losing teams to try to reclaim an advantage, and I love that. On the other hand, giving people a purely economic job without any fighting would be a BIG change to the game. I could easily see too many or too few people trying to farm money, and introducing such changes would upset the delicate balance of the game for quite some time. I also don't see much lore precedent for infantry collecting tiberium. What you are describing is a player controlled infantry variant of something that already exists: the harvester. I don't mind the idea of infantry harvesters, but it seems too easy to abuse, or too silly to have half the team running around trying to not get shot while nothing to fight back. It would be a large jolt to the balance of the game and very hard to implement in my opinion. I feel that economic management was always a big part of RTS games, and Renegade never did a good job of capturing that aspect of RTS in its conception. I have always secretly wanted to be able to buy my own harvester, drive it myself, and collect from multiple different patches of tiberium as i saw fit. The AI harvester is just too dumb. the Commander's ability to set way-points and stop the harvester is a poor solution in my opinion. In other threads it was discussed that the commander has enough to micromanage as it is without babysitting the harv. I suppose my solution would be to just make harvesters player-controlled and expensive as all hell. Keep them as bulky targets that are slow moving. Maybe set a limit of 1-3 harvesters per team. or keep them free and have them do their AI-thing until someone jumps in the driver's seat?

Personally, i love new maps, but i love full servers more. So if i will even see your maps entirely depends on if the server being used has your maps in rotation. I don't know what criteria the devs use for adding maps to the official servers, but it might be worth reaching out to them. Really though, even if the community was toxic as f!ck toward new maps (which it isn't), would you go to the effort of making 25 maps just to keep them to yourself and not release them?

This is a collection of bugs regarding Ren-x as it exists on my computer. I can split the bugs into separate topics if you wish, and will be happy to provide any system specs, crash logs, or the like if you request them. None of these bugs bothers me much, I am happy with my current Ren-x experience; lag, crashes and all. I am not looking for solutions or fixes for my own sake, but want to help the development team improve the game as a whole. hopefully there is some useful insight in the following: 1.) Game crashes due to "out of video memory" This happens every few hours that i play ren-x. I have seen the technical support thread regarding this. it recommends using x64 bit version. see #3 2.) New maps cause crash Many months ago when the map Desolation was first released, I discovered that my game crashed whenever it was voted for. There would be no error screen. The game would simply either close itself with no explanation, or more often freeze, forcing me to end the process via the task manager. I would be able to rejoin the match after the initial crash, but the game would not let me flow from the previous match to the new one on desolation without restarting. when I did rejoin, my name would be Player#### instead of cheesemonk. my name would revert back to cheesemonk at the beginning of the next match.This is the post I made regarding the bug: After Desolation was changed (com center removed, tunnel added ect.) the problem went away for a while, then it returned. when steppe was released, the same bug afflicted me whenever it was voted for. within the last few weeks, I have noticed the problem also now effects me when playing the updated Cliffside (the changes to which I love by the way), and when playing Volcano (i have noticed no changes to Volcano, but it did not used to freeze the game for me, did you update it?) In the previous thread, It was recommended that I use x64 bit version. see #3. 3.) x64 bit version lags I am embarrassed that it took me years of playing this game to realize that there is a little x64 bit check box in the option menu of the launcher. I believe that it does indeed fix both of the previous bugs (and looks nicer too!), however it also seems to increase the lag of my game. Sometimes lag is not a problem, but when it is; when overworked servers crunch through the chaos of 64 people clashing together in violent glory, the x64 bit version undoubtedly teleports me and my aiming redicule more wildly then the x32 bit version. I would like to run more experiments with the x64 bit version, and appreciate the better graphics, but more often then not, i find myself opting to put up with the occasional crash rather then fight a battle against lag. Is there a reason the x64 bit version is not checked by default? is there a known reason these bugs only affect the x32 bit version? is there a more prominent location the x64 bit checkbox could occupy? 4.) Registry has 16 "my game long name" entries with the Ren-X icon. Also 1 "my game long name" entry with the UDK icon. Title says it all. I used to think that a new entry was added every time the game updated, but the number has remained constant through several updates now. currently, they all are marked as updated 3/4/2020, I assume this is the date I downloaded the last major update. Personally, I don't care, but some people would be upset by a program leaving poorly named clutter everywhere. 5.) "Speed hack detected" Sometimes when playing, the game lags. lag is a part of life, I have accepted this. However sometimes when lagging, the green words "speed hack detected" appear in the upper left corner of the screen. if I continue to hold a movement key, my character will repeatedly teleport back to the location where the lag began. The only way to end the cycle, is to stop pressing any buttons and remain still for a moment or two. I assume this is a function to rectify unit position discrepancies between the server and player computers as much as to stop players from abusing lag to their benefit or stop actual hackers. I do not pretend to understand the specifics of how a server reconciles unit positions with the computers the players are using. All i know is that it is incredibly annoying. If the game has to reset my position to correct some discrepancy then so be it. It should not force me to stop pressing buttons on my keyboard for an unclear amount of time. When lagging in the middle of a battle, it is frustrating trying to time the speed-hack timeout purely on experience so that i can move again as soon as possible. press the button too soon, and you are stuck where you are for another 2 seconds. Take too long to move, and the enemy will head-shot you again while you stand stock still. Surely there is a better way to implement this function. Also, Stop accusing me of hacking when the problem is merely lag. 6.) Getting stuck on Eyes This is a map problem, and probably doesn't belong with the other bugs here, but what the hell. It is incredibly easy to get stuck on the rock ramp leading up from the silo to the arch at the NOD entrance to the tiberium field on Eyes. I have learned from experience to avoid the wall when going up that ramp, but have seen an absurd number of new players get stuck there the last week or two. Many maps have obscure locations where one can get stuck and be forced to suicide, but the ramp on eyes is by far the worst trap, as it lies on an often traveled path and does not look like a place where one can get stuck. P.S. I apologize for the wall of text. On the plus side, I have never experienced the infamous sound bug in my 3+ years of playing Ren-X.

Most games where I volunteer to be commander these days it is to use one or two specific powers. I don't enjoy typing to my team constantly when trying to tell them to do something while I am standing around typing instead of helping do it myself. I will become commander to stop harv, or to cruise missile a guard turret, or to use a buff in low player games, but I don't enjoy all the typing it takes to organize a team. I would love if I could vote to be given just some of the powers, without the burden of responsibility for using them all. Observation: Commander role has too much to do; Scouting enemies, controlling Harv, judging the best time to rush, getting in position to call down cruise missiles, typing "y" "/c inspiring text" every 5 seconds. A new UI would help the wall of menu options and make the role more accessible to new players, but I still suspect there is too much to do compared to normal game-play. Suggestion: Introduce sub-commander roles. Have a harvester sub-commander, who can control harvester. Have an air-support sub-commander, who can call in cruise, emp, and smoke. Have a scout sub-commander, who can use radar scans and lights up targeted enemies with "e" just like commander. Reserve the buffs for the full commander, who can still use all the powers. Optional: Commander can select sub-commanders, or players can vote them in. We can come up with a better name then sub-commander. call them captains or officers or something.

I tend to agree with the main post. I think introducing an MMR teambalance is one of the best improvements the game could have right now. (imo the second best improvement would be the city flying map... but that belongs in a different thread.) I think the rate of people smurfing, looking for workarounds, or generally abusing a rating system would be low, and any attempt to balance teams fairly is going to be more successful then the current random chance method. I have gathered from other posts that the easiest and simplest form of tracking players ranking would probably be to piggy-back it off of their steam accounts rather then implement an entirely new account system for ren-x. If so, I still think it would be worthwhile even though not all players use steam accounts. Teams selected based on half the player's skill being known are still more likely to be balanced then randomly assigning players. As for the problems of splitting up friends, forcing people to switch sides mid game, and disabling swapping teams for personal reasons; This could easily be solved by making it a vote option. CheeseMonk has started a vote: Turn on MMR enforced teams and activate auto-balance (F1) Yes (F2) No Playing on a small server and want to fix the teams with your friends? no problem. server growing and need to be balanced? just call the vote to turn it on. Server shrinking and people getting pissed off about being swapped to the losing team? vote to turn it off. people complaining about unbalanced teams after turning off auto-balance because they were unhappy they got swapped to the losing team last game? laugh at them. Everyone wins!

Just wanted to give a shout out to the people who have spent countless hours making Renegade-X and continue to maintain and improve it. I loved the original Renegade, and I love Renegade-X. Keep doing awesome work . Thank You.

You could be right about veterancy upgrading the rep tool, I'm not sure. Let me rephrase this sentence to provide my perspective: the problem is that Nod can't always get to a silo, and if they do capture it, they are forced to camp the tech building, because if they don't then a GDI player will usually come along and re-capture it once the player(s) have left. this happens on Outposts all the time for both the silo and comms center. SBH makes the problem of getting to the silo easier, so perhaps "the problem is that Nod can't always get to a silo" isn't a fair statement, but Patch makes the problem of winning the fight once you are there easier. so the "if they do capture it" is easier for GDI. not sure what you mean by "do the same." GDI can camp a strategic building just as easily as NOD. in a 1v1 fight, the SBH will have the element of surprise, sure, but apart from that, I would prefer having Patch's Gun in a 1v1 firefight. The A-symmetry of NOD vs GDI is designed that way. I suppose I don't understand where your frustration is directed towards. Do you feel that camping is an inherently annoying or cancerous strategy? Or do you feel that GDI cannot compete with stealth mechanics? i.e. that the A-symmetry of NOD vs GDI is poorly balanced?

I don't find this to be a problem. Once an SBH starts using the rep tool they become visible, and a full charge of rep tool is only enough to neutralize, not capture, a %100hp tech building. So they have to break stealth twice in order to capture one. In addition, a global audio statement plays when they start capturing "GDI Tech Building Under Attack" So you know what is going on, and have a solid 30-40 seconds to respond, with the SBH visible for most of that time. I wouldn't mind additional game mechanics that neutralize stealth (like emps but with larger radius and minus the freeze on tanks, or special googles as a item you can purchase) but I don't think tech buildings are the problem. If anything, I find SBH to be weaker when camping tech buildings then when preforming other tasks around the field: picking off hotwires, c4ing MRLS, abushing snipers, ect.

As curious as I am, this is probably wise. Some players would undoubtedly try to switch teams every match if they knew one side was statistically more likely to win. Not to mention the complaining that would happen when losing as the less favored side. The benefits of releasing such data would be limited to people making more/better suggestions surrounding balance, but I already trust the Dev team to consider balance issues before implementing changes.

I like this idea. I already heavily rely on audio cues to recognize when i have killed someone (BOINK!) and when a building/harv is under attack. Sometimes I miss votes that are staring me in the face because I'm too distracted with everything else going on. Solid suggestions.

Personally, I love beacons. They are the only effective way to force hotties/techs outside of a building and provide an extra strategy in the toolbox of ways to assault the enemy base. One of my favorite experiences in this game is successfully sneaking across the map as an SBH carrying a nuke and climbing up the WF ramp to place it right on the edge of the roof. Equally as enjoyable is sneaking across the map as a spy and placing the beacon in the back of a base defended by an AGT/OB. I feel the skill required to successfully sneak, money invested simply to make the attempt, and loud beeping/countdown are a fair trade off for the power to instantly destroy a building. This being said, in low player games they are MUCH harder to defend against. If you can win the 1v1 or 1v2 battle against the defenders it wins the game with a single fight. I liked the server-specific rule that used to be common of disallowing them when the player count was under 24 (CT servers i think?). As a personal rule I don't buy beacons in games under 20 players unless the other team uses them first. I would support banning them in games with too few players (20 would be my number, but you can pick whatever number you like). It also seems reasonable to limit the number that could be placed simultaneously, although more then 2 at the same time happens so rarely in my games it hardly seems worth mentioning.

I have this bug as well. However I am able to join a server just fine if I double click on the server directly from the launcher. If I select "launch game" from the launcher (or exit a server) then the main game client loads fine, but crashes and disappears as soon as I select "multiplayer" The client does not give me any trouble browsing through skirmish, options, or extras.

Whenever Desolation is voted for the next map, my game crashes during the loading screen. I can rejoin the game and play as usual, so I am not bothered much by the bug, but this has happened every single time I have played the Desolation map (6-8 times) so I thought I would let you guys know it was happening.

So I restarted my computer (for the first time after resetting the game) and it runs fine now. Thank you for your prompt and helpful replies! It feels good to know that a game I enjoy so much has good staff behind it. In case it will help your development team, i will still answer your questions: the game would freeze, sometimes with a black screen, sometimes a random landscape of the current map, and sometimes with a newly spawned soldier at a purchase terminal. a second or so of sound would be repeating in the background. I can copy and paste one of the log files here if you would like me to.

skirmish mode works fine. I don't have any software that should be effecting my internet behavior except my anti-virus, and disabling it does not change anything.

Yes. It does not help. I could try uninstalling and reinstalling, but isn't that what reset is supposed to achieve anyway?

So I am able to start the launcher, run the game, and select a server to join, but ever since the latest patch, when I join a server the game freezes. I have tried resetting and validating Renegade, it does not help.