djlaptop
-
Posts
281 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Downloads
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by djlaptop
-
-
There was another thread about this, Yosh said it was found and fixed for the next update.
-
I am compelled to ask, but are you asking to make it so that the enemy CAN, or CAN'T, lock their tanks on enemy pilots? Because that sounded effective af.
#LowJackForTanks
I'm not asking for it, it's what I already experienced. It's a bug as far as I can tell, as I really don't think it was intentionally designed that way. Once an enemy enters your tank you should lose any bindings on it.
-
Check out the screenshot below:
Full image link: http://i.imgur.com/0WxxomM.png
I am GDI, and stole a medium tank from Nod. Not sure how they got it, whether it was from a crate or stolen from our team. Either way, I try to bind to it and you can see the error message in the screenshot, it's already bound to bamsbaldie. But he's on the other team! Eventually he wised up, and LOCKED THE DRIVERS SEAT, making the tank go dead in the middle of combat. The map ended before he could jump back into the tank.
As entertaining as the whole thing was, for some reason the game didn't detect that I stole it and left it bound to him, a pretty nasty bug.
-
I thought it might be cool to see some weighted voting. For example the vote of the person who got the highest score for each team counts 2x.
-
Seems to happen on reload. Sometimes it reloads, then gets one shot off and has to reload again. Sometimes it won't fire after reloading. A little glitchy overall.
-
I think it's pretty clear the inner damage radius of remote C4 should be reduced, no ? Then we could think about instant detonation again.
I support this idea as long as the damage of whatever the c4 is stuck to is not reduced.
-
Right now it seems there's little incentive to take the risk to capture the silo. It occasionally goes back-and-forth but it's eventually forgotten about. What if the silo gave an immediate 100 credits to every member of a team when it's captured?
As for Xuanne's idea, I think 50% buffs are WAY too much. At most 5-10%. I'm concerned that it would take a heck of a lot of code to do this too, time that could be spent elsewhere. Maybe this is the type of thing that would be best done as a mutator or server-side mod rather than in the core game.
-
I think it'd be helpful. We've all been in games where crates played a major role. Sometimes you're in a vehicle or are a character you don't want to risk losing, but don't want to see the crate go to the enemy either. Would be a great way to tell the rest of your team that there's a crate available (especially in the field where the crates could be vehicles).
-
Sure, but let it be a real airstrike then. Activate friendly-fire. However we are talking about an already decided feature. So what is the point after the devs considered this?
I still think Friendly Fire should be a server configurable feature, but that's a different topic.
The point of talking about it is to provide the devs with additional community input. They're quite receptive to feedback and might change a feature if it makes sense.
-
I've never been able to play in one of the PUGs so I may be talking out of my ass here. Official "squad" support in-game or on TS would be cool, in fact it would be in the tradition of Command & Conquer. In the RTS games, how often did you have different groups of soldiers you'd send to attack different buildings?
But couldn't the commanders creatively break the team into "squads" as-is now? Like at the start of a match the commander gets on TS and says "Everyone get flames, then nicks starting with A-L attack the barracks via inf path, M-0 attack the wf via field." Granted this only works if people actually DO it, but statistically the same number of people will do/ignore it from A-L as will from M-0.
Oh and that dude whose nick is all squares gets to stay and defend.
-
Well considering flamethrowers have flak armour.... that was literally the worst example you could have come up with.
Also....MRLS have a higher chance to randomly head-shot LCGs, so again this was a poor example.
LOL, okay. Probably bad examples. But my point still stands, Gunners are terrible against infantry, but I consider that by design. They definitely have a role. A Gunner rush is one of the most terrifying things a Nod team can see coming down the tunnel. But if you try to take on an Apache you're better off with the cheapie Rocket Officer thanks to locking.
Please don't misconstrue my comments to mean "Gunners are broken and need to be fixed," because I DON'T feel that way. I just think that strategically there's little use for them for my tastes.
-
I understand the need to prevent airstrikes over your own team's beacon. After all, an airstrike is primarily a defensive maneuver (of course it can be used offensively in creative ways, but most often it's used against a large group of progressing units).
When the mammy rush decides to roll in and they simultaneously place a beacon in your base, it would be nice to be able to airstrike the incoming vehicles. It's incredibly frustrating that you can't airstrike the mass of tanks guarding a beacon.
What would you guys think about allowing airstrikes over enemy beacons?
-
Gunners do indeed rip apart an arty, but if it's moving and you're far across the field, the travel time for your rockets can be problematic since they don't lock.
Gunners also can be one-shot killed from an arty from across the field.
Against infantry, even basic infantry, a Gunner's only chance is to use the carbine sidearm. Sure, you could shoot the ground near your enemy and hope the splash does enough damage after 2 or 3 clips, but by then the flame trooper has you.
Really the only reason I'll buy a gunner nowadays is for the EMP. Economically, there are better anti-tank resources.
-
Thank you guys for the clarification. Maybe the "out of bounds" time should be a server-set value so those server owners who want to allow it can.
The infantry bounds in Whiteout I don't think are as bad as it requires some skill and agility to get back into the map in time, and you still have base defenses + mines to contend with. But Humvee/APC on whiteout are pretty bad, maybe worse than on Walls tbh.
-
Some interesting behavior of the c4 delay that irked me in a match yesterday. If you throw a remote c4 and wait your 1s before you can detonate, and then you throw your second c4, it "resets" the delay for both c4's. I should be able to at least donate the first c4 I threw down and already waited my 1s for.
-
Happened to me in Skirmish mode against bots while Godmode was on. I *think* it was Goldrush but I could be mistaken. I didn't actually take damage because of Godmode, but the tiberium damage was perpetually occurring.
-
As long as both teams get a passenger in their assault aircraft I don't see the problem. It's not like it's unbalanced.
-
http://i.imgur.com/ePX0ZfC.jpg
Harvester Traffic Jam
-
The biggest problem I have with the delay is not being able to detonate a remote c4 just as you're getting run over by a vehicle. There were many times in the past where I was able to destroy the vehicle and save myself from being run over, but now even with the reduced 1s delay that's damn near impossible. Especially for those of us in the US with a 300ms+ ping time. That delay, when added with the latency is an unreasonably large nerf for remote c4 imho.
-
I think one of the problems is that newcomers may not realize that the mine limit is PER TEAM and not PER PLAYER. And they may not also realize that overmining erases older mines. They see the mines are at 20/20 and may assume that they simply won't be able to place a new mine. Oh but wait! It works and they can! "Silly game, still has bugs," thinks the newbie.
-
With the new infantry changes, pre-harvester rushes have been the deciding factor of the game far more often now than ever before. Probably 1 out of every 3 games, and almost always in Nod's favor.
-
Is there any reason why you don't want to run Steam?
At work I'm on a Mac running RenX through Wine.
-
The grenadier does indeed have the advantage of being able to attack buildings from the outside, but that is on par with the Nod flame trooper. I may be mistaken in this assumption, but in my mind the grenadier is supposed to be the unit that balances the flame trooper out.
The grenade launcher is a difficult weapon to master because of the arc that the grenades travel on. It's like first-person Angry Birds. While the grenades deal significant damage, even against large vehicles it can be tricky to make impact while they're moving. Against infantry it's damn near impossible to get a direct hit. Nod's flamethrower, on the other hand, has such a wide spread that you just have to fire in the general direction and you're pretty much guaranteed to do some damage.
When taking on any sort of infantry unit the grenadier is far better off switching to the pistol. If the explosion radius of the grenade was increased that would at least give a grenadier a chance against any sort of infantry resistance.
-
I like to plant beacons in that corridor in the WF because it's one the last places players expect and they often go hunting for it outside and on the roof before checking inside. But now I can see it may be problematic to disarm due to this glitch.
Personally I've run into this glitch when repairing the HON from the lower level on the sides.
Side note, I literally LOL'd at the emp grenade going backwards.
Soft-Boundary end-of-map bug
in Feedback & Bug Reports
Posted
If you're outside the soft boundaries (getting the countdown to return to the playing field) while the map ends, you die during the first few seconds of the cinematic, but never see the scores, post-game chat, and are not given the chance to vote on the next map.