Hohndo
-
Posts
146 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Downloads
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Hohndo
-
-
2 hours ago, Fffreak9999 said:
@YagiHige except people never joined a second server, since people always wanted to join the full one.
In the original Renegade you could add a player minimum before bots were automatically added to the game. Do you think that could be implemented here? I don't remember if that was a standard feature or not, but I remember a lot of servers doing it. That might help. Not everyone knows how to add bots. At night, I fairly consistently see at least one person ask to add them.
One of the negatives of adding a higher amount of players is you start taking strategy out of the game and it basically becomes a contest of brute force. Which depends on your perspective on if its a good or bad thing. I would say bad, mostly because I like having my options open.
-
It's a team based game, man. You need to work with people and sometimes that means you can't always do what you want to do.
Since the CT server has been updated to 60 players it makes solo sneaking significantly harder, though. But, it is entirely doable. I'm going to try to make the point of it getting reduced down to 52 players because I feel that is around the point some maps like Walls and Islands start to break since they were never designed for that many players and those are two of the more common maps people like to play.
-
1
-
-
I've had the map crash the game for me once.
It was several weeks ago and I've not had a issue since.
-
I actually haven't been able to get Frostbite to load. I suppose I should get that take care of before Sunday. lol
-
I was on, just not sitting with the other two players.
I was waiting around for Madkill to get on.
-
I kept forgetting to report this. Lol
-
1
-
-
You guys sure this is accurate? It says Ukill is rank 1.
This looks good, though. I honestly had no idea you guys had this, lol.
-
Currently the only way to see enemy infantry from Comms Center in either your base or theirs behind walls is through the minimap. I actually use the minimap for input like this. So I don't support this.
-
1
-
-
I would support a EMP weapon airstrike or similar. so long as it has a wide area.
-
I'm still down for everyday unless something comes up I don't know about right now. I think there might be a Saturday in March I'm busy but I don't remember which or if I'll even follow through with that.
-
I don't feel anyone should be vehicle surfing. At the very least not on aircraft solely because you can have repairs in the air that way.
Doesn't matter so much on the ground because regularly you can have repairs in the ground.
-
2 minutes ago, yosh56 said:
False. It was accidental in beta 1, and banned on aircraft because you could snipe/Gunner Rush from on top of Trannys. Ground vehicle surfing was never banned and eventually accepted.
I... honestly don't have that much of a problem with it on ground vehicles considering all the infantry still take splash damage.
Fair. At least it was originally unintentional. lol
-
I would actually like DoT on top of vehicles. People should not be on top of vehicles under any circumstance in this game.
It is technically against CT's rules as no one is intended to be there. It wasn't part of the design of the game, it's just possible in some circumstances. I don't know if it's actually enforced, but that's just something I'd have to ask Freak. -
I was told by Freak that the original Field doesn't really exist anymore but Field Night2 and Field Day are the next best thing you might find. They're on CT AOW server right now.
A test version of Islands Flying is there too but its already outdated. It's there for testing purposes and currently broken with all the bad boundaries on it.
-
An infantry only mode needs to be a bit more arcadey I think.
-
-
I would actually like to see this replace the current model honestly..but thats just me. I hope we see the finished product.
-
Can the cooldown be different for different maps? In some maps the cooldown is fine but other ones where it can just be used constantly, over and over again it is too strong.
-
1
-
-
Not super interested in this but if we had a day doing this I'd probably go along with it.
-
I kinda like the harvested tool idea but I don't think it'll change anything in a significant way on maps not designed for it. It would go a long way helping the losing team but the best snipers in this game already ruin most games they are in, they would have a hay day with this.
Which brings me to another point but I'll start a thread for that later.
-
1 hour ago, yosh56 said:
....And this entire topic is probably a good reason as to why there was never a sequel.
Dis' shit hard, yo.
Can't please everyone. Just keep in mind, for the original game they didn't take input during the development.
Plus they only fixed things that didn't fit the outcome of their vision. This vision is a community thing so it's harder for everyone to agree.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Fffreak9999 said:
Honestly, I would like to see an increased selection of characters available once buildings go down, but lock out the iconics for each team, I say leave the following locked out, although the Medium Tank, while being the iconic vehicle for GDI, is also the weaker tank compared to the Mammoth and as such should still be available.
In the case of GDI
Havoc, Sydney, Mobius and Hotwire.
In the Case of Nod:
SBH, Sakura, Mendoza, Raveshaw and Technician
If the SBH is only included solely because of his impact on games, I would argue that Gunner should be added to your list. But, if you're going to lock out any tier 2 units, I think they should all be locked out honestly.
I don't want this to happen, though. I like it as is. It's severe enough to make it feel important, but not so much that it completely screws you over.12 hours ago, Kaiser739 said:The changes people have proposed here will only lead to games being more stalematey again. When airdrops were introduced in Beta 4, there were games in which Nod infiltrated and destroyed the GDI WF, but subsequently could not finish GDI off because they'd airdrop Medium and Mammoth Tanks all the time. It was almost as if there was no disadvantage to be felt on GDI's side and that's just wrong IMO.
Losing a building should really hurt a team like it did in early Betas. For me, when the Barracks/HoN gets destroyed, only free infantry classes should be available. WF/airstrip goes down = no more vehicles, no airdrops at all. Refinery destroyed = very little income, almost none at all. This teaches people to defend better next time - it might lead to more camping, but it also leads to more teamplay on the other side, because you need to organize to overcome a good defense.
I'm not trying to make a point for, or against this. But, it seems like you are forgetting the ragequiters/ragejoiners. I've seen even the best teamplay players just up and quit or join the winning team. This immediately creates a player imbalance. This makes their situation worse. It seems like we're trying to make things a bit easier for everyone. While not everyone is a fan of it, its needed to keep things going and keep interest up I suspect. Because having it that way is better than not having it at all.
Piggy-backing on that..What I would like to see to in the event of player imbalance is that team get a damage and armor buff relative to how many players are gone. The higher the imbalance, the higher the buff. I'm not even sure if this is possible to do, but I'm trying to do some research into it. Just haven't taken much time to do that yet.10 hours ago, Gliven said:I wouldn't mind a game mode where a building death is just temporary. If you kill a building it disables it for 10mins. The first team to disable all buildings at the same time wins. A secondary Victory point would be the first team to lets say 5 building kills win. Scale-able depending on how many buildings there are on the map
I like this as a alternative. But, I can't imagine this would be a popular alternative mode.
8 hours ago, Quincy said:Some will argue that the punishment for losing a building should be harsh so that it feels rewarding for the team that destroyed it and so that no campfests & dragging the game to infinity occurs. And some will argue that the punishment for losing a building should be light, so that the losing team still has the motivation to play & chance to win and because comebacks are fun and exciting.
Both are right and I think it's about finding the golden mean.
I also think that right now the punishment is too harsh, for one reason: veterancy. Now if you lose a building you not only get punished by not being able to buy certain units/having lower income, but you also fall behind in veterancy. Especially if you lose a building within first 10 minutes - that results in a team of recruits without a building fighting against a team of veterans. This is also caused by lowering the required amount of VP to advance a rank, which I am still against.
I am rather against the idea of building reconstruction - sounds boring, it's not intuitive and never been a part of the Renegade series. I might change my mind tho if I see it work.
Instead I would suggest implementing one, some or all of the following:
- decreased amount of VP awarded to the team after destroying a building
- increase amount of VP needed to advance to the next rank so that a team that destroys 1st building doesn't instantly become all veteran
- after losing HoN/bar, enable all infantry for double the price except for adv. engis, 1k snipers, Sydneys/Ravs and Mobiuses/Mendozas. I am not sure about SBH.
- after losing WF/strip, enable all vehicles for double the price except for apaches, orcas, mammoths and stanks. Actually we could consider removing the airdrop rules and just let players buy their vehs whenever.
- after losing ref, it should be 1.5 credit/ second instead of only 1/second.
Losing PP and base defences is fine as it is now.
Implementing all would probably be too much and would lead to the punishment for losing a building being too light. But some of them would feel very welcome.
Changes to veterancy is something I'd welcome, but I don't like most of these suggestions at all. That drastically changes the game as a whole. It would lead to much longer games. But, I also feel the game would lose it's identity. Maybe make it a server option.
Renegade isn't a series. It's one game. Renegade-X is just a modernization of said game. It's important to keep a balance, but there are lots of things that can be made better because the original game was not perfect by any means. -
1 hour ago, Madkill40 said:
Ukill has made a mutator which removes the second Timed C4, as a gameplay test it would be interesting to see how much of a change this brings to a standard game of RenX at least for *a day, maybe we could use it for just the PUG? Or apply it to one of the CT servers for a day? [If the latter an IRC-announcement would need to appear for a few days beforehand to inform players so they don't assume it's a bug]
For those who think this will make RenX better/worse, let's give it a try before any permanent changes are made to the base game.
The usefulness of mutators.
#notmyRenX lmao
-
Could that be accomplished through coding?
Make The Game More Tactical Please
in Feedback & Bug Reports
Posted
I like that idea. I don't believe that 60 should be the limit, though. Just because as I said, it makes some popular maps broken. Which may be a problem with the map list.
It would require a bit of work, but maybe we could tweak Walls and Islands and have a version for higher player counts in the future. I have some ideas in that department, but nothing I have the know how to do yet.