Demigan

I wouldnt mind one but I dont think its as simple as "large map with players and restricting ring". A key element is keeping the player busy during the game. You should always have something to do that feels useful. Looting, hiding, hunting, waiting in ambush, mapping through an area etc. How would you balance the weapons? A ramjet in open territory seems a bit more OP than a shotgun or grenade launcher. You can use rarity ofcourse but many weapons would obviously be way more powerful. This many weapons also means that sharing ammo becomes an issue, and you would either have to shower the player with ammo everywhere (and likely tank FPS), throw a lot of weapons under one ammo type which means people will limit themselves to the best option or cut out a lot of weapons. Maybe you can invent something with upgrade items? You pick up a low-tier weapon of one ammo type and are able to upgrade it to higher tiers through exploration and perhaps sacrifice of some of your supplies and equipment. It would add a uniqueness compared to most other battle royales.

Copy one of the few intelligent designs from Tib Wars: when engaging infantry it fires along a horizontal line, damaging and killing anyone and anything in its path. Also arent the NOD turrets supposed to compensate for this? Change their shell AOE size and proclaim they are HE and they should do a good job right? Maybe let the aim near the feet so a miss wont negate all the damage.

I read a lot of donts, but what about do's? What is a good way to inspire people? You have to start somewhere earning that name for yourself so any small and easy things you can start with to build it up? What are good tactics to take the field when you are being camped?

Yes, good point. It would be nice to have alternatives that dont require a refill after use though.

Would be nice if players themselves could also try and track stealth dudes without having to bother the commander for the limited amount of spyplanes. What if they get paint-grenades/mines or something similar to try and detect them?

I'm on Folding@Home now. Thought it would be appropriate to watch some origami on my phone while it happens

I think there are two types of teamwork available in RenX. Long-term, which is based on getting a mass rush together, and short-term where players who are nearby each other want to stick together for a moment. Long-term could have a vote-in option. For example if the commander asks for a RocketRush the players could press a button to say they are in, which puts them in a similar squad and makes everyone more visible to each other. Short-term could simply be based on proximity and actively joining. Actively joining would be friends or trusted players who you want to stick with that you can have join in a squad so its easier to find each other again and stick with each other. Proximity-based squads would simply show the nearest X players and put them in your squad so you have an easier time seeing and communicating with them. But if one of their number dies or goes out of range they are removed from the squad so you aren't relaying information to someone who isn't even there anymore (until they return that is). This does mean that player has a different proximity-based squad depending on where they are in relation to each other. This gives the best of both worlds. People who stay in squad through death will actively join each other, impromptu squads would rely on proximity-based tactics but have no problem if one of their number dies.

I've been keeping my eye on that since forever for the TS release...

I want to do my part, but only if its worth it. Looking at Warcraft 3 remaster here. So the moment I know this isnt a bug riddled mess that has enough looks to be worth it, I'll probably buy it. Otherwise I'll just start my First Decade pack and replay them from there.

People seem to hate stalemates these days. But what if that is the wrong conclusion? They might not hate stalemates, they hate not having the satisfaction of finishing a fight. So instead of trying to unbalance the game or make it easier to destroy stuff while making it harder to defend (destroying that awesome feeling you got in original Ren when you had a good shot at destroying something), perhaps you could add mid/late-game goals that help players feel like they accomplished something? That way the feeling of reaching a milestone so you can leave can be created even if you havent finished the battle.

Looks good! What kind of editing software are you using for this?

Young and old people are the most likely to die. But people of all age groups and medical care availability have died, including several doctors. Just ask yourself: how lethal is the ordinary flu for children and the elderly? And how lethal is this one? The biggest problem with Corona is how it has little symptoms with many people who spread the disease unknowingly, and its hyper agressive at other people who might die from it. And while it is unlikely, the unfortunate truth is that any one of us could still die from it. When I get home from vacation I'll definitely get my pc working on this.

A Rating won't be that good will it? It's not indicative of the map, but the subjective experience that player had at that moment. For example there are a lot of people who seem to hate Under, yet it is voted for an aweful lot by the community. So by default you have a bunch of players who hate the map flow and will rate against it, while another group might be influenced by how well the game was played. I prefer close battles where my opponents are about equal in power and skill, yet as a rule a lot of people will go "GG!" the moment they can absolutely crush their opponents despite them beating up an outnumbered bunch of newbs. And even that loss can cause people to rate it negatively even though there might be nothing wrong with the map. I think the forums are a better place to discuss the maps. Perhaps you could make a weekly/monthly discussion about a single map, and also advertise that in-game so players are encouraged to come here and talk about it. That way you get a more clear idea of the pro's and con's of each map as you take in the entire experience, not just that one game where people weren't having fun. For example: Besides that it's picked a lot, what is the reason there is a hard-core anti-Under group that get's outvoted so much? Is it the map flow? Is one faction much more likely to win? Perhaps add the win/loss ratio of GDI/NOD in the thread if you have those numbers.

Ah, seeing that V shape there finally got me up to speed...

Kirov reporting!

When you try to organize an assault in another game and spam alt+3 when everyone is ready. That one sometimes still happens to me.

It's a balancing act. A vehicle has the speed and above all sustained firepower to lay waste to buildings from outside with relative ease. Where infantry needs to reload and can be sniped, shot, exploded or crushed the vehicles in this game can stay in the fight longer and keep a continuous barrage of attacks going. This balances vulnerability, firepower, sustainability, speed and size against each other pretty well and makes sure that tanks need infantry and infantry need tanks. That's especially important when your pretty cheap Arty goes up against the most expensive infantry units and you actually still stand a chance of winning that fight. If anything vehicles are the most important in destroying bases, with APC's being a necessity in many cases to ferry infantry to their destination if you are assaulting a base with the defenses still online.

Are you sure these candy-cane modifications are real? Although that green version looks kinda cool it makes little sense to create all these colorschemes right? Unless they intend to have 6 different neon-colored factions fight each other. You also have to wonder what it would bring to the table. We have the current Stank. This new version looks lower... And that's it? What would it add to the current gameplay? What would the Garpy (:P) add to the already existing Apache and Orca? It has the same setup of guns+missiles. This kind of question would go for most of the concept art. The Mobile Artillery (same name? That's going to be confusing) is deployed and an easy target. The concept has it fire upwards in an arc. Considering they just removed the shoot-around-corners ability of the MRLS why would they be adding a non-LOS vehicle to the game right now? And to balance it's vulnerability when deployed would it fire mini-nukes? How do you even balance out it's range in RenX's maps? And the Mobile Sensor Array? Would make Stealth gameplay rather useless. The detection range of that thing would need to be very VERY carefully calibrated to be not too powerful but still worth sacrificing a vehicle slot over. And what does the NOD Buggy offer over the Humvee and existing Buggy? Or the Bison APC over the current APC? It needs to offer a unique gameplay niche so it fits in the current game. And that is ignoring how game-breaking it would be to have an APC or Devil's Tongue pop up somewhere in your base.

I like the shell-shading. Not for it's aestetics but for the (I assume) easier load times and better frame rates it gives without sacrificing too much eye candy. The biggest problem is that it's usually too candy-cane-in-a-neon-workshop colored. I like the idea of breaching walls, building and such, but can they pull that off correctly? It's not like you can just add base-building with some units and think it's going to be fine. Levels need to be designed properly, bases need ways to be destroyed without it being impossible to defend. And how do the crystals work? They seem to drop from the sky and be harvestable. Does that mean that to get the resources you need to get there first and harvest it? Could be interesting. That way you have the end-goal (base destruction) with secondary goals to get an advantage and defeat your enemy (control crystal drops, control area's where you can launch attacks from etc). reading the backstory, why are these people fighting? The first trial powered the eastern seaboard for a week! A single city-state would need just a few drops to be completely self-sustaining for years. So besides the "BOINK", Mammoth Tank much?

*Nod commander to his men* "Allright lads! We'll go up the Eagle's ass and blow it up from the inside! Who's with me?"

As far as I'm aware its usually just one server being filled at a time. I will prefer to sit and wait for an empty spot on a full server than start populating a new one. Question is, are there enough people doing the exact same that we could decently fill up a server? It would be nice if this was more visible, including how many unique players logged on but never entered a game so players can know what to expect. "7 players in the waiting room, 4 players left without joining a game in the last 30 minutes" gives you a good idea of how many players you could expect of they all joined an empty server. Or maybe there are better ways of handling this? For example you can join a server, but use a button to check current server status so you can leave and join a full one if a spot opens up? That way players are filling an empty server waiting for a spot and eventually might be too invested as more players join their "waiting" room.

I'm from the original Renegade era and talking about those experiences. There was no moderation in the beginning and while a moderator might have had that power at some point I've never seen it used. And again: during this era games didnt end because people left, they came back for more. That is why I lament the fact that some people will vote for the next map at the drop of a hat in RenX. Fortunately many of these votes fall flat. Also I didnt know a moderator could do that? Isnt the point of the voting system that if enough players vote no that they are actually enjoying it, and that a moderator ending it is going against the majority?

You seen to restrict yourself too much on what a stalemate is. You can have stalemates that are solved eventually. Some stalemates are balance issues, like when a chokepoint is too hard to pass and no one can effectively destroy the other base. But some stalemates are there because the teams are simply balanced at that time. I loved the excitement, the thrill of destroying a building on Renegade (or failing to destroy) because it WAS difficult, but not impossible. I have less love for the Renegade and RenX maps where its relatively easy to destroy bases because there's too many options to attack. A good stalemate is much better than maps where either one side will have destroyed something within 15 minutes of starting.

Yes. Literally 3 days. And normally population dropped to 30 or something during the day and back to 128 (that was the limit I think?) During the evening. But during these 3 days it was full around the clock. I logged back on so many times to find it still there, it was wonderful.

If we talk about unpopular opinions... Stalemates are AWESOME. It means the game is in balance, that both teams can get an advantage but have to use everything they've got to win. The big problem that I see is that there are stalemates and Stalemates. For example when one team is camping out in front of the base and doesnt actually use this position to attack but only farms points from that one building they can safely shoot. If they at least took a risk in order to destroy something everyhing would be OK and you can have fun going back and forth trying to achieve something difficult and feeling good about succeeding once in a while. If they dont you get the boring farmer slugmatch where the defenders try to push the attackers off from a bad position and nothing happens. The best match I've ever played in Renegade was a 3 day long marathon map on Under where the defenses and vehicles were taken down, meaning just infantry and crate vehicles. It was fun, it had tons of organized attacks and struggles to achieve a good position to start an attack from. Sadly players will now vote for the next map if a single turret is destroyed.