euan-missile

@pawele I'll have a look for you, can you tell me what time you played this match?

@AngryyyDaveee Thread name > a thread with some very unpopular opinions Posts > some very unpopular opinions AngryDave > "useless post" Me > Thanks dave

Islands > Lots of fish, people complaining about bass to bass. Under > Over Under Field > No barn cant store my harvester. Canyon > It's actually a tunnel. Tomb > Actually a coffin and you're damn right you're awake in it. Whiteout > King of the hill but 𝓗ank is an artillery. Tunnels > It's actually a canyon. Field X > 12 hours to make a bridge, comm centre, whole geographical foundation, yet no bA𝓡𝓝 Uphill > You're going up my what? XMountain > put 2 more X in the name and then get back to me. Lakeside Winter > Is that the plank from me fu҉c҉k҉i҉ing barn? Mesa > named by jar jar Reservoir Winter > wait Is that moRE PLANK FROM ME F҉U҉C҉K҉I҉N҉G҉ B҉A҉R҉N҉ Oasis > no Storm > Rihanna was inspired to make a song from this map Crash site > Harvester driver got promoted to Star ship pilot. Artic Stronghold > I need new earphones GoldRush > Why am I broke then Desolation > Defence towers finally got their glasses cleaned Eyes > Nope they're dusty again Toxicity > Someone stole my bikes Walls > Made by trump Volcano > Lol can no Snow > Harvester stolen cos nobody built barn Outposts > So there I was sunbathing on paid vacation, then my commander calls me back for stank rush HourGlass > Yeah okay so who wired up my obelisk? Cliffside > Beachside Complex > quite simple really Daybreak > So I said to him, "my day needs a break" and he was all like "Sshhh, say no mor҉e҉"

I would doubt there's any "official" procedure, I'm just gonna take a guess and assume that the success of your idea depends on whether the idea has been made up on the forums or made from time and testimony from in game. IMHO I think at this point in Ren X history, any ideas that come up are just one sides of an argument where the other side has equal point, so it's a loop and that's probably why it sits on idle so much.

oop.mp4 𝕟𝕠

Revolution.mp4 When you accidentally kick the wrong person ᴅᴏ ɪ ʟᴏᴏᴋ ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴛʜᴇ ᴋɪɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴄʟᴏᴡɴ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴄᴏᴜʟᴅ sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴀ ᴍᴏᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ?

@Tytonium

100% agree. People who dedicate their free time to keeping this game running don't deserve bullshit from the playerbase.

Loving the feedback from this thread, thanks guys. The Restore Building vote was initially designed to be used in a situation where a building is killed early game (particularly on maps where people want it to last more than 5 minutes) Restart map votes were usually called in this situation, but it's quite rare that they ever passed. The main reason for this is because the team that killed the building loses out on all the money and VP gained, plus the time they put into it. The Restore Building vote solves this because the team that destroyed the building still have the edge over the map in terms of money & VP, but the losing team still has a fair chance to make a comeback. As said, I do agree that it probably won't turn the tide in the majority of games - but for a short number games there will be an epic uno reverse card because of it and I think they're the most enjoyable matches - not least for the memes that fill the endgame chatbox. nod won? wat With that in mind, implementing it as a game mechanic rather than a balancing tool (where it would require a credit pool cost etc) would upset the purpose we have given to it here on our server. Since there already is a "cost" of the restore building vote. The fact that the other team now has an edge in money + vp for the beginning of the match. Any further punishment will just entail a steam-roll as violent as if there was no building in the first place. But yes, it certainly needs tweaking. I was also thinking about locking the vote after 15 minutes of a match. And it unlocks again after surrender, just so the winning team can show a little bit of mercy and restore their buildings for the final attack. If they so choose.

You're a wizard Harry

waw3.mp4 Uhhh I can explain

@Tytonium Like we see with Thanos, balance requires stability and stable this game is not. It's important to remember, The inherent design of Ren X is deliberately unbalanced, this goes from everything down from weapons, vehicles and to map design. Like i've described before how GDI is a hammer and Nod is a knife. So no one team is designed to have an equal hand, so from the start no one team is designed to have the upper hand, always just different one. Which is where this game is different from others, power can shift in a blink of an eye all because one person failed to uphold their task. That's the nature of this game and that's why it's different to others. - Many other multiplayer games care incredibly little for the action of one person, unless you're the last alive in S&D in CoD. The term "one man army" has never been more applicable to an online game than Ren-X, and in some multiplayer games is considered an offence to your team, but in here it's a style. But people treat Ren-X like a standard FPS game, either they'll get infantry characters and play it like CoD, dying in seconds after charging aimlessly at the enemy, or they'll play it like Battlefield and get a vehicle and do the exact same thing. No one stops to consider, how their actions will affect their buddy next to them and then subsequently the whole damn game. How many times have you been on a rocket rush, been late, missed your shot(s) and the building is on that mystical 0 hp? then your team loses. Everything single damn thing has a domino effect, whether you lose your $1000 character/vehicle to an enemy's $500, be late for a rush, repair the wrong vehicle, miss that one damn shot, or vote roweboat to be commander. You too can cause the entire demise of your 32 player team. Here, I updated the recommended specifications to play Ren X. Windows 7 2.7+ GHz multi-core processor 8 GB system RAM NVIDIA 200 series or higher graphics card 15 GB free space Brain Which is funny, because when people use their brains and start coordinating together, people call it Stacking because they're frustrated how OP it is, even though that's exactly how this game is supposed to be played (which is why it's powerful) even when just two-three people coordinate together versus a whole team of headless chickens, they're gonna get the cuck, and i dont mean the rooster kind either. Anyway, long story short, my take away is this, Chinese. It's my favourite food.

I needed more godforsaken rum to get through that post, I agree with your points mostly but I think map design is something overlooked. Getting pinned down on field is completely different than having it done to you on field X, but aside from that I'd agree.

Ah so its not you under there then UWU

Takes my words away. Including my reply about gore, someone answer him, I need to take a break. And can we put this in a gallery?

did Did you make this? i'm a cunt hair away from reverse image searching this on google, please tell me, you made this

Affirmative. Affirmative. Take the point! Affirmative. Watch where you're pointing that!

This is the exact reason why that "weak" vehicle is actually so very potent to late game vehicles. It's a perfect way to balance out Nods lack of Behemoth vehicles, by simply having swarms of smaller vehicles. So with that in mind, I'm not sure why they never bothered to add it into the base meta. It's funny, I often think about Field when imagining vehicle balance - and also how my Stealth can never stay undetected for more than a minute. Yes, the tactic does require a combination of open terrain and cover for it to be even considered, and like many tactics, it can be quelled by the use of infantry supporting the tanks. Not just repairs, but also snipers and anti tank inf. - I should stress that "hit & run" and "stealth ambushing" methods are my favourite tactics ever since I was playing renegade when I was a child and against an unprepared team, they are devastating. But, they can be easily repelled if GDI is on their toes, or if Nod isn't on theirs. - which is why this is a common gameplay meta, because it is very balanced and marks the important distinction between GDI and Nod. - As for your last point, yesterday I played an early morning 8v8 vehicle only game of daybreak, I organised our stealth tanks to do nothing but harass oncoming GDI vehicles using these tactics above. It was disgustingly effective, against Medium tanks, Mammoths & Titans. Despite GDI having a sense of competency, using anti tank inf, repairing tanks and avoiding clear ambush hot spots, they couldn't take down realistically any of our stealth units. Even if we weren't able to kill their infantry, they couldn't withstand our attacks. This however, contradicts my first part of the message where I said how Infantry support is critical to stopping these tactics. I made a few mental notes that'll explain the contradiction - and why these tactics are so potent to large maps only. Nods fast attack vehicles are very much rocket based, having the ability to stay locked onto a target is not really necessary when your target is already a large and slow vehicle like a mammoth, but when distance is applied, it becomes an unfair advantage. But more critically, It allows for intense and vigorous movements that allow you to dodge incoming projectiles, whilst still landing 100% accuracy of your own. I worked out that for every 3 120mm shots that landed on my stank, I would of been able fire my stealth tank consecutively, for atleast 25 seconds. Equating to somewhere around 50 hits of my own. Admittedly, I did have to use rocks & cover to properly get this result. Now, from the Mammoth/Med/Titans perspective, trying to shoot a small fast moving vehicle that's utilising cover at distance, by using blindfire, is disgustingly unfair, especially to inexperienced or new people. On top of this, I found the enemy anti-tank infantry had a pathetic range to engage us. They would have to sprint far away from their vehicular cover, before we were in attack range. By which point, we could cloak, relocate and squish them or if we had recon bikes, we could sprint out of cover and engage them in the open briefly, and very violently. Even if we swapped positions, and gave the GDI the cover we had rather than open ground, they'd still struggle to hit us as much as we would hit them, and it wouldn't change the attack range of their anti-tank infantry. So, these tactics that practically define Nods vehicle ethic, have many counters on smaller maps. We can see, anti tank infantry can now play a role against it, and smaller distances mean that the ability to "lock & dodge" or "hit & run" aren't ever fully utilised. But on larger maps, this switches completely. GDIs current balance and meta setup only applies for smaller maps for it to stay inline. I actually remember thinking by the end of that game, how much fun it would be if Renegade X could have a vehicle only based large map, all the strategies and tactics that could be played. It would be amazingly fun, having the chance to see Mount Harbour, really excited this idea. But there needs to be an overhaul at GDIs end when it comes to balance engaging Nod at distance, particularly I think with fire engagements, armour, weapon range, and projectile splash damage. -- And ahh, I see your point about devs, but keep in mind, no game can age without change. Even unnecessary ones. And a vehicle like a recon bike, placates heavily to the natural guerrilla warfare of Nod, meaning it wouldn't require any new skills or complexity to learn, seeing as it still keeps within the meta that Nod currently uses. You'd be more stressed out, if Nod was given a heavy tank. 😉

@HIHIHI absolute top kek memery in your last post and some great points - and points considered, I think as games grow older and become either more populous or not, a strive for change is always going to be common ground. And I think one major change that could be implemented (and I firmly believe will be) is vehicle specific maps, in that I mean an expansion on the "flying" - "non flying" maps, where instead of just helicopters being an alternating meta, we also have differing vehicle in general, to suit certain maps and allow for more strategic and skill set growth with these maps. However, I am confused about one thing - i am noticing important discussions on a very specific topic - There's talk about "late game" vs "early game" @LavaDr4gon talks about this best in his last post, giving a brief insight into Why the recon bike was more-or-less shunned into crates. The common idea is that GDI have more "late game" vehicles, which is to say Vehicles that are heavily armoured and incredibly powerful, which can overwhelm NODs "early game" vehicles, which is to say Vehicles that are weaker in these aspects, if not cheaper and more agile. Both teams follow this mantra, and as you progress through the ranking system you'll see it more clearly ingame. And the initial idea which lead to the Recon Bikes demise, is that NOD needed a vehicle that would act more as "late game" heavy armoured and powerful to counter the ones that GDI has - and the Recon bike is clearly early game, which is to say, weak in those aspects. My confusion arises from this, This ethic implicates that the bike, couldn't take down a mammoth. Or even say, a Stealth Tank, can't take down a mammoth. - Which I think is nonsense, NOD is Guerrilla warfare - "hit & run" is the common playstyle of these bikes and other NOD vehicles in general, and is disgustingly effective against heavy GDI Units. - Think of maps like Outposts & Daybreak, where these supposed NOD "early game" vehicles, can outmanoeuvre, outplay and destroy GDI Mammoths and Medium tanks with virtual ease. (even if there is equal numbers) NOD is a knife, GDI is a hammer, sure the knife is weaker, but it's sharper and has more potential if it can be used correctly. - My point here being, if you use the bike correctly within the intended role, you can do some serious harassment and damage to these bigger GDI Late game vehicles, so it would of been a good balance. The only thing that really stops this from being shown more clearly, is the current map designs which are incredibly small and really impede these tactics. I'm looking forward to seeing more open and vast maps, which would give a better understanding to these principles. - but if all maps were Daybreak and Outpost, you'd see that GDI would be incredibly overwhelmed. I think that's because, while NOD can play to their principles well, GDIs "hammer" isn't as strong as it should be to keep up.

So I've been following this post for a while now, I'm happy to see it's gotten some decent traction. My only fear is it'll fall on deaf ears since I know the idea about adding certain 'alternative' vehicles into the meta has been brought up before, and is likely to come in two forms - either a specific addition as per map (like with say cnc-Toxicity) or will be an entire overhaul on the base game, in which case I feel as if one vehicle is going to be added, many others will follow either as balance or as a general content update. So with that in mind, I do think this is going to be a slow change regardless. This doesn't even take into consideration that the current New Recon Bike is in need of some major overhauls before it's pushed into anything more than a rare crate drop. i'd also like to say @DoMiNaNt_HuNtEr is passionate, like me, about the idea of motorbikes being brought back into a mainstream appeal for NOD. It perfectly encapsulates their guerrilla warfare, lore and playstyle, though don't be fooled - @Havoc89 perfectly illustrates that the experience you have with the TS Attack Cycle is going to be completely different from the one you experience with this New Recon Bike, for the simple fact that the TS vehicles from the Mystery Crate are designed to be "rare exotic" and overpowered as they're considered rewards, not purchases. So with that in mind, the two motorbikes cannot be compared by stats or gameplay meta, so fears about how badly this New Recon Bike will offset anything is likely to be found on paper only and not in practice, I keep noticing people are assuming it's going to be like the TS Attack Cycle. Of course, the confusion here arises from the simple fact that the New Recon Bike, is found as a "rare exotic reward" so we naturally compare it to the other Mystery Crate exotics - but it was released with stats and characteristics of a purchasable vehicle, which is why it's getting such harsh criticism right now. So if we instead compare it to the current meta of ingame purchasable NOD vehicles, it actually falls comfortably inline. Though, it still needs bug updates and general gameplay tweaks, to make it more consistent & stable. However, I do like the handling and physics even if the sensitivity is a little high. I've been using it alot and i've gotten rather good at it, making the learning curve hard but once mastered, it's something to use to your advantage. But the bottom line is this: There have been many great ideas proposed to the Devs and others, but these ideas are almost always complicated, stressful and call for a much bigger change overall that cannot be done in such a easy brush of a hand. This forum post perfectly illustrates this, with alot of tension from frustrating indepth discussions about gameplay changes via Vehicle balancing, Vehicle count limits, Map designs, hell, even talks about even the specific models and timeline of the vehicles being used for the Base Vs Crates. There's alot to consider, but as a wise person in this forum said, this is a fan made game for the fans, so if they want it, it should be done, from whatever result comes out on @roweboat poll. Though between you and me, if I had it my way, I'd recreate the exact recon bikes from old Renegade itself, and give them the damage, stats and handling as the New Tib Dawn Recon Bike, and put it on NOD for select maps in place of the Buggy. - I'd also go ahead and put the New Tib Dawn Recon Bike model in the bin, and just keep the TS Attack Cycle as a crate rarity. While I don't particularly care for the whole "its from another universe" argument. As far as I see it, NOD is still NOD, but I would like to see as many renegade vehicles return as humanely possible.

BROTHERS, HOSE THE MOOSE. I love that i started this absolute top KEK meme And as for @roweboat last post, I can confirm my birth name is Euan "gEt HumVeE" Missile.

I think the idea is good, but I think ren-x has a current issue with skill pools and how that's divided into teams, it's never an issue with team balance, more an issue with player count at designated times that have equal skillsets. It's always rather unbalanced, some of the best players don't get on til one time and the rest are mediocre who cannot compete to the same levels. And you can only divide a cupcake by so many times before someones going to get nothing. I've watched and partook in many smaller community games tournaments, it's always done an amazing job to boost morale of the current playerbase and invite new players in, the problem being these games always tried to focus on the individuals rather than the teams, because tourn teamplay requires balance, cohesion and incredible consistency that's rarely found on smaller player based games. But, from my observation they overcame that shortcoming by setting up Clans, not teams. The difference being that clans aren't rotational with their players, which means each individual clanmate (regardless of skill) has a chance to learn their role, improve and perfect under the guide of the Clans Sergeants, Captains & Generals, without the fear of losing their position, or being swapped to a different place and having to learn all over again. This is important for spectators too, as they can consistently keep focused on the clan that they abide in, or dislike. (This is starting to sound ironically like unreal tournament) I don't know how many people should be in a clan, or how many clans should be created, but as a guide I would say there should be atleast 4 clans, split into 20 players each, so you could have 2 clans (40 players) fighting against eachother in one match. Rotating the other 2 clans as the games progress. I personally think these clans need to be NOD/GDI specific too.