Demigan

You forget: they are thinking about adding a simple death-match (and completely inferior to C&C mode ). I don't know but I think they are going to add new maps for specifically deathmatch. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

When I was watching I was actually expecting him to draw a lightsaber and start blathering about the force. I think that trailer does a lot better at showing the planets decay then all of C&C 3 together. Hell, Tiberian sun did better at that, the tiberium wasn't as lethal as in C&C3 but if left unchecked it really covered something. GDI has been working from the start to destroy tiberium, Nod has been working against them for all that time. The tacitus holds the key to destroying tiberium, just think of the sonic weapons they made from a fraction of the data. That GDI top must be desperate for a cure, and Kane, who has been working against them from the start, is showing them that very thing as a bargaining tool? That would be most surprising. The fact that so little GDI guards are around seems to me like they set up shop in a neutral zone, an old GDI base that was abandoned as the city was consumed by tiberium, cleaned out and taken back into service for this occasion. Kane must have something to withold or vital data in his head that GDI must need before they can actually use the tacitus or something, otherwise, GDI could simply take the tacitus and kill the head of Nod in one stroke (personally I would either completely take the man apart atom by atom or put him in a maximum security prison deep under the ground and keep an eye on him so you will always know where he is, he just doesn't stay dead otherwise). Yours sincerely, Demigan.

Instead of having several games at once, how about just one at a time? Like in the first 2 C&C's, both teams get to see a world map with the lines of what is in their control and what isn't. One team is allowed to select a place to fight, based either on sheer chance, or other factors like which team can travel faster to the location they select, which team has won (and doesn't have to spend time retreating) and so on. Perhaps add special abilities to that 'world map commander' that they can use to get an advantage next battle. Another option is to see which area affects which, and let's the most dominant over the other play first. Say GDI attacks a coastal area, and Nod attacks a mountainous area, a pass through the mountains towards a powerplant station of GDI for instance. Then we'll see who's faster or which map is more dominant: in this case Nod is attacking a GDI power station, which is supplying power towards the coastal area (the Islands map). Now the game chooses that nod is faster, and the nod map begins (the first mission map). Let's just say nod loses that map, GDI will keep control and nod has to retreat. But at 17 minutes during the game, Nod managed to destroy the powerplant of GDI. Now GDI had been attacking a coastal area, and getting power from the other map. This game starts now with all players from the previous map. After 17 minutes in the game, the power will fail GDI and they will have higher costs for units and vehicles. Suppose that GDI won the previous map at 34 minutes of play, then it might take for instance 15 minutes afterwards to get the powerplant back online. Which means that GDI will have power back in Islands at 49 minutes of play. Losing or winning could affect a lot of things in the game. Adding abilities that the commander can use might be a great addition: building AA emplacements in a certain base, which will take some time, will put pressure on Nod as they can't get vehicles on certain maps if they don't destroy those AA before they are finished. Attacking GDI supply routes might do the same for the warfactory as they can't get any heavy materials to build with, and so on. Some maps would be far to easy this way if you can shut down your enemy's defences before the map even starts, but that's what strategy is all about isn't it? Besides, the next map won't be as easily taken, and you still get to fight for a whole world...

QUOTE ((NE)Fobby(GEN) @ Jul 11 2009, 07:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not exactly what I asked. Suppose you hit the wall next to someone at chest height, not a direct hit. Would the amount of damage be significantly higher then a splash damage against the legs? And suppose someone walks across a grenade that is lying still, it will go off and be a direct hit (I think). But will that do tons of damage, or will it deal significantly less damage then a direct hit vs chest? Yours sincerely, Demigan.

They arrive by carryall . Which in tib-sun could carry one. The carryall wasn't exactly larger then the MCV, so if such a craft could lift it VTOL then why can't the bigger cargoplane carry it? Anyways, it's mountainous terrain and they are having trouble with GDI patrols, so they have to find an alternate route.

A grenade on the ground deals less damage then one at chest height. Will the damage from a grenade deal a lot less damage when it's on the ground (hits only the legs) then when it explodes at close proximity on a wall/against the person itself? That would prevent overuse of the alt-fire because it would deal a lot less damage then hitting someone at higher points on the body.

I think that most of the critics is simply because the series had an almost untouchable image. The new games just didn't answer well enough to the expectations of most, and I must agree they tried too much eyecandy and too little added content. But the complaints about the added content is misplaced. The game has to progress, otherwise it would have been stale and wouldn't have sold at all. The prospect of such mobile bases, in combination of an experienced based RPG system, is more to what I would have expected from the previous games. These are the things that set C&C on the map: innovative command structure, easy access to units and structures, easy to understand mechanics which can be used in complex stragetics. The fact that they are finally improving on the old systems they build, other than tweaking a few of the previous mechanics in the game, tells me they are finally trying to achieve a new game that might actually be a worthy sequel to the old game-mechanics we've seen and loved for long. Ofcourse, there will be hundreds bitching simply because they don't get what they expect from this game, but no matter how good EA will do, they will always get critics. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

All I knew is that there will be a secondary fire, everything else was kept secret as far as I know. There's only a few people who seem to be good shots with the grenade launcher, and while dangerous, I've never really met someone who could stand up to me no matter what character I had. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

QUOTE (epicelite @ Jul 5 2009, 10:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Kane usually executes all failures doesn't he? Nice knowing you epicelite, see you at the afterlife. oh hi epicelite.

It must have been 2 weeks ago that their base was destroyed. But the cargoplane isn't finished so the MCV has to drive over there. Just wait a while, I'm sure they will find the body and get the site back to perfection before the mod comes out. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

QUOTE (Jointn00b @ Jul 1 2009, 12:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Personal lives? They should be sacreficing those for a higher purpose! Nah, never mind that. Just please us with a video update in Juli! Those are just the best ones! I would gladly wait a month or 3 just to be able to watch those video's. There is so much joy in the anticipation Yours sincerely, Demigan.

QUOTE (Dr.Disaster @ Jun 28 2009, 10:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You must admit, those drivers are the most damn fearless drivers in the game. Harvesting even when they are overwhelmed by a hundred tanks and no backup. You know when you are a renegade player when you think that getting yourself killed is the best way to defend the base. -The only real teamwork you helped with was converge on the sound of a laser rifle to kill that pesky SBH -Your a carpenter! You wanted a remote C4 motive on the ground?

QUOTE (epicelite @ Jun 29 2009, 09:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Terrorists? The USA would give away their national bruto for that design!

QUOTE (Qbert @ Jun 26 2009, 10:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What? I know it has always been an issue in the very first (and best) UT. But I've never seen it happen in any server I played on. It usually happens that you spawn a fraction later then bots or some other players after they moved off their spawnpoints.

oh, ok, sorry

How about instead of points, you give money to everyone that follows your orders? For instance: there will be a pot that will be the teams money. This money will only be available to the commander, in a way. This pot will simply fill up with every credit the harvester and refinery get, and perhaps a tiny portion of the total points gathered by the team. half of this pot will be removed after 5 minutes, so after 5 minutes, all money earned for the team-pot during that time will be halved, unless this half is used/given away. Just think of it as if the money goes to other bases who need it. This money will only be usable as a reward for following orders. The amount that can be earned for following an order should be small, and a limit to money given to a player for every so many minutes should be installed to prevent a commander simply giving all money to one player by giving him a lot of small orders. The commander cannot in any way give this money to himself ofcourse, only by charity of players that followed his orders and decide to give him something could he earn that money. You could give him the option to buy tanks with the money, but the commander himself would be unable to drive or fire (unless he's a passenger) any vehicle he buys that way for 10 minutes or so. That way he can fund rushes and have more control on team-actions. Another option he might get: discount on certain items. To incite people to buy the right characters/tanks, you could set up a disctount for those characters. Say you want a gunner rush, the commander will then put a discount of 100 credits on Gunner, everyone will be able to buy Gunner for 100 credits. For every Gunner that is bought, the money of the discount will be deducted from the team-pot. The discount can only last untill there is money in this pot. As the team-pot won't be earning lots of money through points, this pot should be stragetically used, otherwise it would be depleted and useless in no time at all. Perhaps it would be fun that if the harvester is destroyed, a portion of the team-pot would be used to rebuild it. If not enough money is available, or even none, it wouldn't matter at all. Just think of another base having his teamearnings halved after 5 minutes and the money will go to building your new harvester. It would be an even greater incentive to keep the harvester alive if the money you get for a reward come on top of the money you get anyway form the harvester. The amount of players in game would then matter a lot. This team-pot would gather money as if he was earning practically no points, so solely receive money from the harvester and refinery. I don't know how much time it would take to make such a system or a better one. But anyways, it shouldn't be in the first vanilla version. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

Renegade, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Let's see. The good: Renegade's multiplayer is what it's all about. Even now, it's still unique. Leading FPS manufacturers are only now creating game-modes that are similiar, but are still a far cry from the extremely tactical gameplay offered by Renegade. Some mods, like Empires, are now actually reaching for this particular stragetic game-play. (note, I haven't played empires, it just seems that way from what I hear). Renegade offers many interesting things: a solid economy structure, dictating most of the game, but not actually dominating it. Unless you have almost no money at all, you will not be at a unbeatable disadvantage. But having loads of money to spare will give you a great enough advantage to aspire to it. Tactical options that can change the entire course of the game. In most ordinary servers, the game can end in 3 different ways, total destruction, high-score after timeout, beacon on the pedestal. Just destroying one building can give you victory, or lead to your own defeat. Destroying a building will change the entire tactic's of the enemy, leading usually to a more defending stratagy. Which might end up with your team losing by time-out due to a lower score. This makes the game versatile and different each time you play. There is no straight plan to follow. If a strategy works once, the next time it is likely to fail. A defending team who is prepared will almost certainly wipe out anything thrown against them. Last but defenitely not least, the game manages to give more tactical people a great advantage. There are people who can't hit you with a flamethrower at point-blank range, still, they can contribute by infiltration and blowing up buildings. Which is a great step ahead of any other FPS I've ever seen, where the best shooter is always the best player. The bad: Renegade has a solid multiplayer, but there's lots of bad things in it. First of all, the bugs. There are numerous bugs which you probably know and sometimes abused: wallhugging, refhopping, having your tank destroyed outside the repairbay of the weapons-factory, falling into blue hell and simply the bad coding that caused so many lag and inconvenience all around. What's bad more? The single player. Whereas the multiplayer is the most stragetic game I've ever seen, heard of or played, it's multiplayer is worse then most shooters alltogether. There is a little good humour, and then there's shooting, shooting, shooting and... shooting. Despite the fact that there are some surprising events during the game, like a nod technician crying for your help to lure you into a trap, it just doesn't manage to divert your attention from the masses of troopers and tanks you just have to mow down to get to the next objective. And then the ugly: There are some things just not bad, but simply ugly in the game. Graphix for a start. The game's lack of realism, a rocket impacting you, or C4 blowing not 2 inches fom you will not impede your progress at all, the only effect it has is your health bar dropping rapidly. A shotgun that is more a short-range sniper. The imbalance of the units: most of the cheaper units, and especially the cheapest units themselves (not the free units), are rarely if at all used. The more expencive are much more solidly used simply because they are so much better then those cheaper ones. The availability of money only makes this not an unbalancing factor in the game. And the small bugs like C4 hanging in the air from a door that has actually opened, explosions going through anything and so on. As far as I know, the game is still solidly active today. The server I usually play in is even at what is for me in the middle of the day still quite full, while a few months ago that server is filled with 0-6 people at that time. I don't really know about other servers. Besides this mod, I'm not really up to date of any mods or communities. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

QUOTE (thrash300 @ Jun 18 2009, 09:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ehm, visceroids weren't there in the multiplayer, except in some modded servers, seeing Fobby's reaction, I don't think they will even start on one. Frankly, I would rather have them working on all the things that will definitely be in the game then on something that might get in. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

Infantry in a tib field died a long, long slow death in TS. And only 1 in I don't know how many turned into an actual visceroid. Whenever I wanted to have a rogue defence force for fun, I walked about 10 infantry into a tib field, that would generate usually 1, sometimes 2 or 3 visceroids. Funny thing was ofcourse that if a visceroid ate some infantry it became a bigger one. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

QUOTE (R315r4z0r @ Jun 17 2009, 03:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Besides that, wasn't there going to be an overview of the map on which you can draw your lines for how you want a strategy to go? I don't know, but even without adding the places of all friendly players it would be an incredible useful tool for anyone designated as commander. If friendlies are added on this map, a commander would be able to give real-time commands and strategy's. I've been infiltrating bases numerous times when all you need is one person to help you. A commander could help get people who have infiltrated get in touch and coördinate their attacks. Just think of the amount of times you needed cover for your nuke in Walls, with all the SBH's running around in the base but all going after different goals, placing the nukes one after the other instead of all at the same time. Or snipers shooting away their entire load just before you place your beacon, giving you no cover. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

QUOTE (Coffeeburrito @ Jun 16 2009, 03:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wrong, I think. A commander might not be the answer, and neither will a squad, which they are already implementing (the squads, not the commander). This will probably help a great deal. Since communication will be a lot easier. Instead of having to type everything, you will be put into a squad in which you can teamspeak. It might not be a perfect method, depending entirely on how the squads are divided. But it's a great start. Simply being able to communicate between people without having to type will help the game tremendously. And keeping it to only specific people will add to it in larger games where it would be totally crowded with people trying to talk. In renegade, one of the reasons I think teamplay is so shortcomming is because communication is difficult and relatively slow. You can't really do it out in the field, there's always the chance a sniper is aiming for you, GDI has it even harder with all the SBH preying (although they rarely fire). A commander will probably be elected more on favourism then his leadership. A little while ago there were servers where you could give recommendations to people once a day. Recommendations are quite a good way to let people try and achieve something, and people will listen rather to someone with lots of recommendations then someone without. However, I saw small bands of friends do the following: these players were usually quite good, but they just logged on, recommended all their friends, and THEN started playing. This way, the entire band of friends would earn at least 6 recommendations a day, or more depending on the size of the friends that did it. The same will apply to the commander. The person chosen would be chosen by some friends, they've got most people voting for one person. So, a commander should be chosen randomly. At the end of the game, you could have a tiny vote on how well the commander did it. This vote would have 3 answers: 'appalling', 'Neutral' and 'Good'. The avarage is going to be taken. Then this is going to be put into a statistic, just a number behind the amount of times this commander was appalling, neutral or good. This way people will have a lot better way of knowing who is a good commander or not. Everyone will vote, and if a small group of friends start crying 'he's good' but nobody else saw any commanding going on, then he will either go on 'neutral' or even 'appalling' if he should have made commands or only gave bad one's. If you don't vote, neutral will be filled in automatically. Dunno if such a system is a good one, or even easy to implement, but it's a thought. If you think you can do better, which I think some of you can, just write down your own idea. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

QUOTE (Ban4life @ Jun 15 2009, 08:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, but the point is: if a player listens to a commander once, he is likely to do it again as teamplay usually gets the job done. Ofcourse, if the commander fails, which is likely in the first attempt, most likely the player stops listening. It just takes some type of player that listens to someone else. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

QUOTE (=HT=Duro @ Jun 15 2009, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did you do that while in a clan or AOW servers? I've never done them on hourglass that I know off, I have done them on field a few times, but usually without success as it's more a late-game occurrence. as in 'It's the only thing we haven't failed in trying and is still in the manual of rushes that have at least SOME probability to work'. I've always been on the team that was buggy rushed, and I've seen them succeed about 40% of the time. Unlike other rushes, it's less concentrated, but just enough to keep everyone busy with that building while several others reach other buildings and blow them. I've been on the buggy rushing team only once on Under, they destroyed the airstrip before we had it finished however, and I was without a buggy. They destroyed the AGT, but we were too weak after all our tries to break their campers outside our base, so we lost anyway. Oh, and once on a Humvee rush, but that was just utter failure with people trying to preserve their K/D ratio. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

My bad, was on my brothers acc, I'll post it on my own account =) Ban4life

QUOTE (epicelite @ Jun 12 2009, 04:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ooh, I don't mind trying that one out with you sometime. There's only one problem. When the obi fires, it will hit several people at once. I expect that everyone will try and take the shortest route, so we should have about 2 clusters or 2 lines comming from each exit tunnel. Which would mean about 2-3, if unlucky even 5, people dead each shot? Then we also have to break through all the noddies who are comming in the tunnels, killing lots of us, and probably returning there as soon as they are killed. Making the run at the obi even harder. Fat chance it will work, but I would like to try it with you Yours sincerely, Demigan.