euan-missile

Yeah, one 60 rpm arty projectile vs eight MRLs rockets landing at about 250 WPM. Biased

You're hitting the nail on the head with your reasoning, which is the same one that leads me to believe this will be a change in the upcoming future. And I agree about complexity, we had some pretty creative but very complicated ideas around this.

There would be no massive penalty if the only deficit of losing the powerplant is a 50% price increase and a slightly weakened guard tower. It has to be more than that, compensating with the addition of delays is a very poor game mechanic both from a strategic point of view and a game play point of view. As I said before, there are better game mechanics you could implement before resorting to anything like delays. I highly doubt that the powerplant will remain as it is for much longer, Ren-X has always had a softer approach to building loss than old ren, and if a building causes immediate game failure to the team that loses it, then yes, it probably will need to be even "softer." People will stand around charging the AGT/Obelisk as they do when repairing a building that is under fire. It won't be continuous, only charged when needed. This is nothing new to Ren-x. Charging AGT/Obelisk will destroy the amount of enemies trying to destroy the base to begin with, helping other engineers that are trying to repair. Offence is the best defence and now you have the choice of it, even if you wield a repairgun. But yes it will pull engineers from other buildings but that's the price you pay to destroy the incoming attackers. It's balance. The powerplant has always been the priority target on maps with AGT/Obelisk because it effects the AGT/Obelisk. This allows a potential breach into a well fortified base like no other building, now IF you weaken the powerplants ability to grant this breach potential, you'll have people trying to constantly sneak into lesser buildings like the Refinery in a hope to start breaching base defences and that will increase the length and duration of base stalemates. Thus, you still need to keep the powerplant the worst building to lose in terms of how much it wil let a potential invasion steam roll the base, but right now, it's too much and with an automatic half-powered AGT/Obelsik, that's too little.

As discussed prior, without player involvement to recover the AGT/Obelisk, it wouldn't make it a sufficient penalty for losing the powerplant. We still have to keep the powerplant the worst building to lose, so it has to be more difficult than that. Additionally, with the charging system you can have two forms of power mode that'll likely divide RoF/Dam by a specific factor. Meaning that unless a commander is specifically requesting people to charge it to half-power at the notice of an incoming rush, any sneaking infantry will likely be sneaking whilst it is only being charged at low-power.

That'll most likely be the implementation. From the many ideas pooled into this thread so far, the ideal change to the Power Plant would work like this.. Power Plant is Lost > Enable 50% Price Reduction > AGT/Obelisk go Offline. > AGT/Obelisk can be charged to a low power state with 1 tech/hot or 2 engineers. > AGT/Obelisk can be charged to a half power state with 2 techs/hot or 4 engineers. > AGT/Obelisk can be charged to a full power state with 4 techs/hot or 8 engineers. ? *remaining questions How does the half power AGT/Obelisk differ from normal? How does the low power AGT/Obelisk differ from normal? How would engineers charge it? Is there a way for charging to be interrupted? Should it be allowed to be returned to Full power status with say 4 techs or 8 engineers? *Note, charging and repairing will be separate entities but both done inside the towers.

Agreed. But resorting the AGT/Obelisk to the role of a watch tower doesn't stop enemy units from steamrolling the base, which is the ultimate issue with the loss of the powerplant.

Yes, we have to maintain the right level of punishment that keeps the PowerPlant being the worst building to lose, however, we cannot have it so drastically game changing when it is lost. The last part of your message was perfect and was my point too, nobody is going to be charging it constantly if it requires multiple people to charge, people will be *ordered* to charge it by a commander, at the notice of an incoming rush. The question is, should charging the AGT/Obelisk count as repairing too, or should there be a separate terminal to shoot? The problem is not that the powerplant is too important, that has always been the dynamic of the PP inside Renegade, the problem is it's not properly balanced with its importance. Handlepsilon discussion on the matter completely alters the formula of the powerplant, changing it into an entirely different building, which is even more detrimental to balance and game flow than it needs be. It would be considerably better to just negate some effects of the penalty of losing the PP, instead of re-working it entirely. I agree with the marksman to a degree, I feel like it is good enough for a free class but as a counter to long-range snipers, it's not ideal. Having another class that possibly has the increased headshot dam at a price would be a nice touch. I like this addition, though, I'm not sure how easily implemented this may be.

Consistency is important, it shouldn't be chopping up enemy targets into two categories. If it can hit one, it can hit the other. Besides, if it only targets vehicles, everyone will just infantry rush. -- one or two people can afk the tower, but two people will only enough to put it on "low" power. Would need 3-4 to power it up properly. I like the idea and creativity for surprise, but this would only work if the tower is not being manually powered, otherwise it would be frustrating for it to cut-out mid charging, and I feel as the random intervals may be frustrating for both attacking infantry and defending infantry. This could be an interesting function the Obelisk/AGT is reduced too when the power is cut, but, when it comes to the main towers, we need them to kill. As for secondary towers like turrets & watchtowers, when they're dead they should just die. That will be the case anyway, the changes to the PP will likely only effect AGT/Obelisk and thus base defence maps. Non-agt/obelisk maps will be the same as now.

I think it might be best to implement one form of the idea or the other (manually powered weakened defence or automatically powered weakened defence) to see how it gets on in testing.

I'm really glad there is being discussion on the PP, but I don't feel like this is a particularly good approach. Please hear me out. So first things first, I don't want to keep hearing from anybody about what happens in RA2 or RTS, no disrespect, but this is Renegade and it needs to be played as Renegade. So try and look at that. In Renegade, The powerplant has always been the most defended building on maps with AGT/Obelisk, because it's always been the most detrimental building to lose. (It's power after-all.) This meant that accomplishing the defeat of the powerplant should be rewarded with the effort that it would take to destroy it. And for the longest of time, it always has been. (The primary loss of the AGT/Obelisk) - but here lies the problem, in that it was connected to the other most detrimental building for defence, upon losing that building, would guarantee a swift defeat. (I'll skip over the price increase aspect for now.) This is the current formula for how the Powerplant works in old ren and ren-x. -- now, if we changed the formula by say, disconnecting the powerplant from the AGT/Obelisk entirely, we suddenly find the Powerplant no longer being the most detrimental building to destroy, it won't be as defended and it won't be rewarding to the opposing team. You've changed the entire formula and the pecking order that the powerplant holds in the building hierarchy, the balance is gone, so you have to completely re-invent the powerplants purpose now. It's a very sensitive formula, and changing it from what it's supposed to be, even slightly, is as good as making a whole new building. Alternatively, the proposed idea in this thread is to keep the standard formula of the powerplant as same, but allow some way to recover a modified Obelisk/AGT upon destruction, which is the cleanest and most balanced way to do it because whilst it's sticking to the original formula, it's also reducing the detrimental gameplay effect of losing the powerplant, while still keeping it the most detrimental building to lose. Your proposed idea changes the formula entirely and the Powerplant will be come a completely different building. This is complicated, needless and personally I think disrespectful to Renegade because we can try harder than that. - but, for a moment, let's look at what you've got. The powerplant in this formula would do very little to effect the team who loses it, strategically or economically. It will be a forgotten building, completely opposite of what it is now. Delays are frustrating, bad for gameplay and do very little overall punishment as no one really is rushing around 24/7 to get where they need to be anyway. It's just an inconvenience that's out of control with no counter, which I find to be a very poor dynamic (one of which we can avoid with the re-worked original formula) On top of this, scrapping the price increase gets rid of the the only "good" part about losing the powerplant - that you treat your vehicle/character which much more protection, care, value and respect. It makes you be more appreciative of the things you have, when there's less money to afford it. I really love and appreciate the ideas and creativity, but i'm not fixing to reinvent a whole new building and you shouldn't be either.

I agreed with buttons points too, but the problem is not that the PP effected every aspect of gameplay, it's simply that it has no counter. I also initially dismissed the "battery" idea, but the solution to this idea is the AGT/Obelisk could need multiple people charging it, so it will only have those people charging it when a rush is about to come into the base, so it is not all the time 24/7, probably just for those 3 minutes. (Perhaps you could even twin repairing the AGT/Obelisk with charging to encourage this) Though, 1-2 person could also power it to a "low/half power" category, if said person wishes to keep infiltrating infantry at bay later on. Plus, it is an interactive element of strategic defence. Repairing vehicles/buildings is not fun, but your team is winning because of you and that IS fun. Not to mention the addition of Credits and VP from "tower kill assists" you can earn and spend on the battlefield later. It will not be a one-person chore in general, so it'll be more hot potato as people come and go doing the job at different times. (probably when the commander orders someone to start powering it.) The worst case scenario, is that NO one powers it, and you're left to exactly what ren-x PP is now anyway, this just offers you an alternative should the time come you need to power it again, which is exactly what we are looking for, a counter to the PP affecting gameplay. But it *MUST* come at a cost.

Yes that was my original idea, however bare in mind the biggest reason the PP is targeted on AGT/Obelisk maps is because people need them to be entirely disabled, I don't want to make the PP a target not worth hitting. So, it would make better sense if the AGT/Obelisk required a secondary MANUAL way of power, either by players or CP, making it more of a challenge for those who have lost their PP. You propose a very interesting point, a good reason the PP is targeted is because people want the ability to sneak when the AGT/Obelisk is down. My original Idea (and that supported by Buttons) is that it should go "half-offline / low power" automatically without team intervention upon destruction on the PP, but I do fear that is a little bit unfair to the team that took the effort to destroy the PP, because even IF this change is implemented the PP will still be one the most guarded building in the game, so yes, I entirely agree there should be a punishment by the means of a manual power supply to the AGT/Obby. Overall, powering it by CP points isn't very strategic and in some ways having it powered by players would offer an interactive element of defence, which would be the first of its kind outside of repairing and mannable turrets, I can imagine the commander shouting at people to "POWER OB" or " POWER AGT" as an enemy rush is preparing to steamroll the base. As for your idea about negating AFK startfirers, I do agree but if we are having to use 2 or more people to power the agt/obelisk, it might better if it doesn't go half-offline at all, or maybe it requires multiple (3-4) people powering it before it returns to full power status. As for the word Maggot, people keep missing my point; it's NOT the word, it's the fact that with the SBH character the voice distortion and reverb HIDES the 'M' so it's just saying 'AGGOT' which, is what I mean by it being misinterpreted.

I love your suggestion. It would be absolutely ideal for there to be a cost to have the Obelisk/AGT working in some capacity, the cost never being the price of fun. Instead something more trivial like points. Creating "power plant options" as a subcategory in the commander menu, (only being accessible when the Obelisk/AGT is down) and having the option to redirect remaining base power to AGT/Obelisk (at the cost of X CP points for every X minutes) would be the best way to approach this for overall balance. My only gripe is that should there be an inexperienced commander at the helm, this feature will go unnoticed and the whole team will suffer but I'm sure that's not entirely a problem as poor commanders damage the team in much more significant ways. -- Of course, once you've found the method of allowing the AGT/Obelisk to come to life, you now have the question of WHAT is brought back to life. - Should it be brought back to life completely, or weakened? If weakened, what should be the RoF/Dam/Range be? Will it detect stealth targets? Will it be accurate? etc, etc, Loving the responses guys, lmk what else you think of.

Very good point, but my ultimate agenda is to reduce the effects that destroying a power plant has on turning the tide of battle (on a AGT/Obelisk map) and nobody said it would be fun if you wish to recover parts of the Obelisk/AGT support for your team, that said, you could offer VP points & increased credits as a motive, perhaps even kill / dam assists. And consider, there are plenty of Afk-reps that wouldn't mind doing the job for the benefit of others but, I see your point about gameplay, we shouldn't count on someone to sacrifice their fun for others, which brings us back to my original idea where the AGT/Obelisk goes half-offline upon destruction of the power plant, requiring no tech/repairs to keep it in that state. So, what does anyone think about the idea?

Yes, but neither the TF2 Soldier or Mendoza have the reverb/distortion SFX of the Stealth black Hand character, hence why it can be confused more easily. (The 'M' Is virtually silent.) Firstly Reaper, none of my in-game attitudes are serious, only playful, sarcastic and humorous. (and even then, never homophobic) You do not know me enough to understand my humour, so do not worry. I care for a playful environment, not for a toxic environment - no less a homophobic one. I do like your idea, I keep finding people repairing Obelisk/AGT when it is offline (so it's effectively a useless building) which wastes everyones time, would be nice to use that time by powering it with the repair gun as a substitute for the powerplant.

(apologies if this is in the wrong subforum) So I've only been playing for around half a year, but in that time i've had some pretty interesting discussions with so many varying players regarding certain changes that if nothing, could be food for thought. (plus some little things I noticed too) 1) MRLs Bending / Auto Lock. Seeing as the ability to curve MRLs rockets so violently can really allow GDI to do some serious damage to any turtling abilities NOD might have in their base, (and suffer no retaliation) it seems only fair that the MRLs should be restricted to either having -- auto lock ability WITH straight fire rockets,( no curving) or TOW style rockets (free aim/curving) WITHOUT auto lock ability. - Another note is to nerf the Splash damage from Individual MRLs rockets, It's extremely violent, even against flak armoured inf. 2) Destroying Power Plant. (On AGT/Obelisk maps) Back in original ren I was always frustrated that the power plant not only doubled the prices of vehicles & characters, but also took down the AGT/Obelisk as well. I've always felt like this was especially over powered, seeing as the power plant is almost always accessible by infantry paths in some of the most popular maps renegade X has to offer, destroying it guarantees a victory substantially more than if you was to destroy the Hon/Bar or Air/Wep. In Ren X, the prices of items aren't doubled which is nice, but the complete loss of AGT/Obelisk is a massive disadvantage, one that I do not feel is entirely made up by the addition of turrets and smaller guard towers. (Which aren't really common in AGT/Obelisk maps anyway) The proposed idea, halves the effectiveness of the AGT/Obelisk, instead of completely disabling it, the way this can be implemented is very varied and very flexible, for instance you could have the obelisk shoot at the same damage rate, but at only 50% fire rate, or 50% fire rate and 50% damage, and/or even half the range detection. And the AGT could lose the ability to detect stealth targets, along with hampered RoF and Dam. - It's all left up to interpretation. 3) Allow Deadeye / BH sniper to remain after Bar/Hon destruction. - The reasoning behind this is that, during the loss of the Bar/Hon, the ability to retaliate against long distance snipers drops off to 100%. The marksman rifle cannot do the job, and infantry can be Very Violently locked down in their base. However, the price for this character would be substantially increased, or alternatively, create a new hidden sniper class that only appears in character screen after the loss of bar/hon, which sits between Marksman and Deadeye / BH balance, all at the appropriate price. 4) the reverb / distortion on the word 'maggot' from Stealth Black Hand Character voice SFX / kill taunt sound, is a little too close to a homophobic slur. - Maybe its just me, but that's definitely how i'm hearing it, especially with battlefield sfx playing. I just wouldn't want anyone to think that's whats being said. Anyway, hope these can provoke some brains.

Honestly, my first impressions of your map exceeded high expectations, even after brushing over it with a fine comb I still encourage everyone to vote for this map whenever it is on rotation, though as you know I do have my opinions (as many others do) about how it plays, there still seems to be a general consensus about what is not appreciated about this map and the consistency of these opinions does make a few things obvious to me. I have only been playing ren X for about 5-6 months and I can tell you that bigger, strategic tank superiority maps aren't looked on with much favour. (Think of Outpost & Sunrise) and this has always baffled me since Old-ren was 95% about that long, endless vehicle grind. It seems to me, people like a map with an infantry element that I'd say is atleast 60-65% of the maps design focus, vehicular stalemates are something frowned upon. When people play your map and grab a vehicle, they're immediately thrown into a very vast and open landscape full of strategic possibilities. This contrasts heavily with the smaller maps like field and walls, the goal is no longer about taking that mindless 10-15 second drive until you're knocking the enemies front door and holding them there, It's now about paying in blood for every metre of this vast battlefield you wish to claim for your team. This, is more akin to what I've always found attractive about tank superiority maps, as you trade punches with vehicles, not structures. But as you can imagine that's rather stressful if you just want to get in a vehicle and camp the enemy base structures maybe after encountering a short and easily broken vehicle stalemate. So, I believe your initial design choice for vehicle warfare on this map is perfect (to me) as it brings back the strategic nature of tank superiority, but to what I find as the general population of ren-x, it's not so favourable. It requires an enormous amount of think and thought and can grind on far too long with what seems like little progress. And along with this, even if a stalemate has a clear victor, base infiltration seems unbalanced from my experience. NOD can have great success with stealth rushes after a lockdown, owing mostly to the ineffectiveness of the AGT covering the respective field. In contrast, the obelisk does an exceptional job at covering NODs field, I think there is some minor difference in the map design of the two fields that aids that bias, but ultimately it's because AGT is more infantry focused. I recall the two turrets on the GDI base walls, but I can't recall whether NOD has any on their wall. (NOD shouldn't have any either way) The turrets are critical for making up the AGTs shortcomings, but the turrets have quite low health, exploitable blindspots, and they don't seem to repaired? perhaps they're not easily accessible? I wish I could test the map in skirmish to confirm that better, but it's food for thought. So for vehicle warfare, it's going to be a hit or miss for some people, owing to perspectives of how the game should be played and what people want to do, irregardless of what changes you now make. (Though, there are changes to be made, as mine and I do like Mystics idea about that stealthy vehicle path) Now when it comes to Infantry, a similar pattern is found. It's not a mosh-pit free for all, it's again bigger and more strategic, how good you are is not as relevant as where you are, so it makes for quite alot of sniping and stealth play. I can't really say I've heard any real negative feedback on any infantry element on this map, though you know one my first major complaints was with the balance between infantry paths to NOD air and GDI Refinery. In that I mean, NODs most valuable asset on this map is placed under no obelisk cover, not even a guard tower with very short distance to the terminal. Thinking about it more, the tunnel that leads to the airstrip is an incredible chokepoint, though for the early minutes of the map it is very common to have people kissing the terminal of the airstrip regularly, but again also if there is a fair armoured GDI thrust, purely because the distance from the chokepoint to the strip terminal is less than 5 seconds. To really balance out this, NOD has to be on their toes manning the tunnel exit and entrance. I feel as this level of vigilance pulls vehicles from the battlefield and prolongs stalemates, I think the air building needs to be further away and it would balance this out better. *MAYBE* allow the obelisk to cover the rest of the distance too, as the obelisk seldom will put a great dent in a large mass of infantry running a short distance. Alternatively, keep the distance as it is now but allow obelisk cover. Either way, something should be done to help NOD protect their most (or one of the most) valuable assets here. - As for the GDI tunnel, I do not think it needs any changes. As for any specific changes to objects like rocks, terrain, etc I do not have any. I don't think you need worry about very fine details like that, the most realistic maps are very random and care-free, as the real world often is, forcing players to make their own interpretation of the things you lay down, where ever you see fit. Nobody likes a synthetic map. Anyway, I really appreciate your time & effort with this one, it's right up there alongside my favourite map. Which will forever be a secret