Aircraftkiller

You guys really outdid yourselves with this.

That would be hideously stupid. You really think the first thing news won't do is to just call it out as being that same Renegade X? Besides not thinking like morons, the way to put Renegade X back on its feet is to present it to crowds of people that have not seen it (such as a Steam release), of course in a working, stable, self-updating state. If they can pull that out the game has a chance to settle again. They might, they might not. It's worth a shot. Once gamers associate a name with constant crashing, no players etc, they tend to avoid that name. It's one reason why Renegade was a failure. Word of mouth spread about how awful it was. After WS collapsed, the game lived on as a shell of its former self.

They've lost most of their player base as it is. Their best bet is to stop calling it Renegade X and call it something else, so the gaming sites report on something different and the players come at it fresh. The Renegade X brand is pretty tarnished at this point. Nothing short of a full reboot is going to save this

I think I will let the people who have been faithfully visiting this forum when they can't even play the game decide for themselves what these words mean. That's an unedited quote? Wow, how unprofessional. It doesn't matter if it's free or not. They chose to release something for public consumption. Expecting people to adhere to some antiquated notion of Internet civility is just going to bring people in who will purposely troll just to watch this place burn.

The odds of seeing any map development tools come out is essentially nil at this point, so I pretty much lost interest as well. I was hoping to put some hours in on my recreation of Metro, Glacier, etc, but that's probably just a pipe dream now.

You people are far too gullible.

Modding tools are also for map development. I've had a form of Unreal 3/UDK installed on my computer since 2009. I'm versed enough in the engine to create some pretty neat maps for it. I can't do anything for RenX until they release modding tools. I also have a library of Tiberian Dawn models that I had built a while ago and I'd like to have a reason to bring them up to next-gen standards. Without tools, my models are just more UDK screenshots that nobody can do anything with. They'll just sit on my portfolio website and be used by no one.

Building a game-ready computer for less than $200 Forgets to include a case, power supply, video card, mouse, keyboard, monitor, RAM, etc

I've had that issue many times over the years - if I suggest anything that makes airborne units less of a flying deathtrap without suggesting that they be left to dominate everything, someone will inevitably come in and say "BUT YOU JUST WANT AIRCRAFT TO DOMINATE EVERYTHING" even though I clearly gave many viable counters to them, including rockets, machine gun fire, et al. - but they think "LOL IF I CANT USE TEH SNIP0RZ 4 TEH EAZY KILZ FROM TEH MAX RANGE THEN I WONT BE TEH PRO" and they rage about it. I'm hoping they'll fix up the gameplay balance and focus on improving the template Renegade gave them - and barring that, at the very least I'd like to see modding tools come out so people can make their own version that's more like C&C gameplay.

Vintage feeling is far less important than making it fun and playable. Your ideas have merit, but the map needs to be larger to accommodate infantry. "tunnels" are a poor substitute for actual map design. Cover is important. Being able to help in the field of any map is important. Being relegated to hiding behind tanks or running through "tunnels" is poor gameplay.

It doesn't have to be CoD to be like C&C and not inherit all of the shitty bugs/balance issues that Renegade had. It's like you read his point and just ignored it and focused on something he didn't say.

None of that is particularly hard to do for any sniper in the game that's played for more than a week, and the old "tunnels" will continue to be used constantly because of the threat of being picked off as people attempt to run across a barren field.

You can keep the same layout while expanding the map. There's no reason not to do it, honestly. Field has always been too small - making the field area 1.5/2x larger would help substantially and give more room for infantry to maneuver around by freeing up space to add trees, rocks, bunkers, etc. "tunnels" wouldn't help anyhow as you'd be sniped before you made it across the field. You need more cover before moving across a map is viable for infantry.

What we need are fewer "tunnels" and more of a focus on open maps with areas that vehicles find difficult to navigate. It should be something that makes sense for the area. For example, when/if I eventually finish Metro (if the tools ever come out), I'm not going to just add "tunnels" for the sake of it - I want infantry to be able to harass tanks from alleys between buildings. I want grassy areas with some trees that tanks can't simply roll through easily. Places to hide. Making barren terrain in a field with some plants here and there isn't enough - you need foliage, natural cover. Places for people to go without immediately being spotted. I've found over the years that "tunnels" are just a cheap way of avoiding the work required to make infantry compatible with vehicles in the field. There's nothing wrong with having them, but relegating infantry to "tunnels" while making them easy kills in the field means they'll stay in the "tunnels" - which makes them less likely to be on the field assisting the vehicles or attacking them.

Glad to hear Under won't really S the D when it comes out - at least, if it does, it won't be because of a lack of entrances this time around. Think you can rework Field to fix that stuff too? The whole "we fight in canyons with no way in or out and only place our bases right next to one another with conveniently placed mountains separating us" thing is rather 2002ish