Demigan

I've played a lot of marathon servers with a max of 60 players in the original renegade, and an engineers lifespan is a lot longer then 3 minutes. While I've seen mammoth tanks ride into a NOD base with so many hotwires behind it that it couldn't die, I've seen it only once or twice. One of the biggest problems is that you usually don't get enough hotties together, the second problem is that it takes just one Nod guy to kill a few hotties to stop it. So far, 5 techies don't repair 1 tank, they repair all tanks in the field. A daunting task, especially with more then 7 tanks available in most servers nowadays. Having to repair all tanks, which are up against a lot more other tanks ánd infantry, while staying alive with all the extra snipers is hard, and balanced enough. Edit: The red beams were something only the AI engineers were capable off. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

the UDK version is going to allow for 50+ player matches, so I don't think that it's going to be a problem in big matches. The water could be made murkier, so that people who dive under are harder to spot.

I would prefer naval yards. In the good old renegade, when you destroy the vehicle production before your own defences are down, your enemy has almost no chance of destroying anything in your base, same with losing a naval yard. So if you lose your naval yard, I would suggest one, maybe two civilian boats that can carry infantry across, other option was already mentioned, the WF and strip could be capable of building hovercraft in case of naval destruction. Also, swimming should be looked at, swimming would be a good alternative to reach the enemy shoreline, but weapons should be disabled during swimming (with the exception of pistols or sub-machine guns maybe), otherwise, ships would be useless as players would dive under and shoot the boat from below. Maybe limit swimming, if you start to swim, your stress meter goes down. If your meter runs out, your health starts to go down until you find somewhere to rest. Ships: small Hovercraft, arms: none low infantry capacity big hovercraft arms: none low high infantry capacity ór carries one tank+few infantry Motorboat: arms: machine gun 1 or 2 infantry capacity, low health, meant to take out swimmers? (wishful thinking coming next) submarines gunboats aircraft carrier (instead of a base, have the aircraft carrier contain all buildings in modules which can be destroyed) wetsuits (/wishful thinking) Capture the flag could be changed. Instead of just one flag, give each building a flag, to prevent flag-hoggers being able to mine just the one flag and place a big bad tank on top/in front of the building. You are supposed to protect the buildings anyway. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

A question about new weapons: we have seen the new assault/sniper rifle hybrid. So what about other new weapons? Will you add a new shotgun, laser rifle, rocket launcher or explosive?

Thanks for answering my questions Recoil could also have been a larger bullet spread the longer you fire, instead of a moving reticle. Hurrah for naval attacks!

True that, I first thought they would have made a great innovation, in making the MCV more mobile but keeping bases. Removing bases entirely was indeed the killer. CNC3 wasn't that bad indeed. It added squad based infantry to the mix, as well as directional armour and the ability to force your tanks to drive backwards, but also removed things that were rather important to Tiberian Sun. The ever-expanding tiberium fields, the tiberium vines and most important the walls. With the right application, walls can indeed be very handy in keeping stealth units out of your base, or creating time barriers to hold back your enemy for a few shots. Also, the lower units such as the predator tank were completely useless once the higher level units were available. can't agree more

Hold on, 'no bases' could have been one of the greatest innovations in the RTS genre. C&C was renowned for their innovation and the smooth and intuitive GUI they used. Adding a new concept would have been something they should have done in C&C Tiberium wars. They didn't, and failed there. In fact, tiberium wars got negative replies, because they took a step back from their fiction and used more conventional units (Titan replaced by ordinary tank) The storyline was so off from what everyone expected, and missed some important parts such as the scrin, that no-one liked it. The scrin should have been there, a race that invented a way to refine an entire tiberium covered planet should have been a prime target for them, after all, the scrin mined the rescources themselves. What's more, they couldn't know that the planet was totally refined. The storyline was also having strange hiccups. The tacitus from Tiberian sun is used to activate the scrin towers and suck all tiberium away. The tacitus, however, is from a different alien faction, that WARNS of the scrin, so they are enemies. Why would they have information on how to improve the scrin towers, and help them harvest an entire planet in one go? Also, Kane survives an ion cannon blast in the very first C&C, this is considered canon. In the last C&C he get's shot and regenerates on the shot. But only the scrin superunit can survive an ion cannon blast, so the question remains, what IS Kane, how did he end up on earth? I think C&C 4 was simply pushed through the pipeline, going more the way of FPS's these days: adding some 'great graphical features' such as damage only at the side where the unit gets hit instead of game mechenical features. The C&C hype was on, they had a team together to work on it, and a good engine to run it, so they tried to take as much money as they could with a more multiplayer oriénted RTS game. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

Seeing as how strange EA works, with the last C&C missing most important parts (what the hell happened to the scrin? etc), I could imagine that in the next 2 years we could have 3 more C&C titles in our hands, simply because someone at EA said 'we can get money that way'

Nice I've downloaded the game a year ago after I really wanted to hear the music again, one of my brothers still got the original CD somewhere. After finally beating inhuman I bested godlike, but only one level remains... Overlord I switched tactics, unlike the bots, it's too hard to keep an eye on both the teleporter and walk that small path to the booth. So I support them by sniping all enemies in sight. I cheated after one of my bots got into the booth, and somehow got shot before he could destroy the panel. Everything else I managed just fine. I sometimes try overlord again, but it's just such a terrible map... too many deathtraps, too stupid AI. If only that mortar at the beginning was removed, then the AI stupidity would be taken away and you could actually amount an attack with equal numbers, even if it is from a disadvantaged point.

SBH's without weapon pickup should be one of the very best units in the game: -For only 400 credits, they have stealth -They also have the laser rifle. -fast reload (fastest there is I think) -pinpoint accuracy -medium range -high damage per shot vs tanks ánd infantry (+/-7 damage each shot vs tanks, 10 damage each shot vs infantry+10 burn damage) -medium ROF (with this ROF and the damage vs tanks, they are almost on par with MED damage/min) -with only two (trigger happy) SBH, you can hold back both tanks and infantry, 4 can rip a rush apart. This makes the SBH, even without stealth, one of the best units the game would have to offer. With stealth, it's one of the best units (and that's without weapon pickup!) Why isn't the SBH that good? People are afraid of decloaking. The moment you hear a laser rifle, people FLOCK towards it to kick your ass, because SBH are easy targets, they concentrate more on running and hiding then shooting. SBH could be god characters with weapon pickup, but it NEVER HAPPENED in any game I've seen. People are playing too careful, fearful. With or without weapon pickup ór carry all weapons, SBH will always be played wrong. ESPECIALLY sniper SBH, they wait too long to fire a shot, even when you stand still they take too long to actually fire. Snipers in renegade are good because they aim and fire in split second, intuitively. Take your time for a shot and you'll probably miss. Suggestion: if you have renegade, pick an SBH, and every time you see an enemy, close in until you are at an easy shooting distance for you, and just FIRE. Keep comming at them, keep attacking, have a happy trigger finger. That's the only way you will find that the SBH can be a lot more useful then hanging around gathering weapons or waiting an hour to steal a vehicle. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

I've played games with weapon drop excessively, and there's a bigger problem with a large portion of the team playing SBH and just hanging about, then one actually becomming dangerous. SBH's with ramjets or other snipers are dangerous, but they don't act like other snipers, they rely on their stealth, shoot only when they are REALLY sure they kill you. That's where they start sucking, SBH's shoot so little that they barely kill someone, and the few times there was an SBH around that could both snipe well and had a sniper it was easily circumvented by either a hunt, or just taking a tank. I think a system without carry all weapons enhances gameplay. Think basic soldier killing one of your mates and picking up a badass weapon to push into your face. A battle is less predictable when low class units can get the right weapon if they think fast and have the skill. Renegade shined through it's battles where you tried to rush through 5 enemy's just to finish off that sniper, where other FPS's are about killing the easiest target and moving on. Now you can enhance that even further, trying to get the right weapon in the middle of a battle, or killing someone who has aquired a good loadout (assuming that weapons will drop more frequently then they do in the normal renegade). There was nothing bad about the old system, this system just seems better to me. Someone mentioned something about needing a full armory to infiltrate. How many weapons did you USE? You need explosives, and then depending on your choice an anti-infantry weapon and an anti-tank weapon. Well, you can carry them both, no sweat! Yours sincerely, Demigan.

I was curious, my very first FPS I played was UT99 (and even now it still ranks as the best game-music I've heard, even though I played it only a little). Who else played it, and what difficulty level have you beaten?

how exactly will 'stress' work? Will it depend on how many enemies you are facing, how many bullets are passing at close proximity, damage taken, actions taken in short time (jumping, changing walking direction, ducking etc) or friendlies nearby dieing? What will it effect? Running speed, accuracy, reload times, speed at which you capture tech buildings etc. Sounds very original as far as I know, unless it's a sort of copy of adrenalin from UT 2004 . Listening to how it is explained, it seems like weapons which aren't meant for close combat will be harder to use when in close combat. Would be great I think, snipers would actually need backup when moving through close quarters. Can't say I'm totally a fan of the 'recoil'. While I don't know how it will play out, I would hate to see the current high accuracy run-and-gun playstyle go to waste with basic infantry and the like. I always figured I was among the best when it came to basic inf combat . Having to fire in bursts, or firing while standing still with machine guns is good for shooters like crysis and MW3, not an arcade shooter like renegade. Or at least, thats how I think it is. So the question comes down to: how will recoil work in the game? Every time someone mentions a new vehicle, they always seem to replace another vehicle. Will there be option for servers to not just replace one vehicle with another, but also allow those swapped vehicles to be bought simultaneously? More vehicles, more joy! Another thing about new vehicles: GUNBOATS?!?! Will we actually be able to drive them instead of having something to look at? And last question: what kind of assault modes are you thinking off? (fluff) Will this be defending a critical point for a certain time (with and without waypoints), having to kill the other teams critical unit/prototype, capturing and returning to base with a specific object (plain CTF or having to actually use a special cargo truck to load something in and driving it back to base), will there be draws (One team defends the object, the other tries to take it, if it's destroyed in the process, both teams lose), will it be waypoint based (team 1 assaults the beach and has to reach point whatever to win) and/or destruction based (team 1 assaults the base and needs to cut power to beach defences or destroy all SAMS on site) or a convoy mission where you protect a unit as it moves from point to point? Also, will it be base vs base oriënted (This could be played on slightly modified normal maps), or special assault maps with special setups, unit availability etc? Yours sincerely, Demigan.

The AGT could attack anything that was in missile range, the moment you came so close the missiles couldn't fire anymore, then the guns below the AGT would remaing firing at you for a short time (equal to the time that it would fire when you show yourself for one seconds and then dissapear behind a rock). In Renegade-x the guns all fire regardless of the missile that the AGT fires. So anyone who can be seen by the ceiling guns will be shot at. This way, the minimum range dissapears. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

You really wanted to tell that story, didn't you Havoc? I hope my computer can do one last big game before it dies out, hope it lasts till BD get's released! hmmmmmmmmmm C&C BD

As for the funding question: the team got permission of EA to use the copyrighted tiberium universe, but on the condition that they cannot earn any money out of it (would look especially bad if a mod outdid one of their own games). So in fact, the mod could be stopped tomorrow by EA. It's doubtful and I don't know what deals they actually made, but this is what I gleaned from it. The only thing we can pay the creators is our respect by playing it, and making damn well sure that the gaming industry notices their talent and hires them. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

As far as I know, the Ren-x team isn't allowed to receive any kind of money for this project. The only thing you can spend money on for Renegade-x, is to keep the public servers (not sponsored by them) alive. That way, you can support the game by keeping servers open. It's the only way to support the game with money that I know. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

Seems like you are managing just fine in making each video centred around one subject I really find it a shame that I don't have the willpower to keep editing video's myself. Ga zo door Jam!

Too bad... And I wouldn't know the first thing about making those gameplay video's. Besides that, my computer is showing the Blue screen of death more frequently, and I'm waiting for it to die out before I start doing any fancy looking game again. Untill then, it's old Renegade and real old games for me. Interestingly though, I've been working with an 11 year old windows 95 computer, which works perfectly and flawlessly (it was bought with 2 GB, for that time!), and while that computer is unbreakable, working synchronysed with component-computersystems and internet from that age, there are 9 high-tech modern computers for building 3-d images of x-ray scans that are broken within 2 years lying in the corridor. Makes you think what happend to the quality of the chips we used. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

It has already been asked in the FAQ, but the FAQ hasn't been updated in a long time and that was long before the UDK: Will weather effects feature in Renegade-x? If so, what kind of weather effects? It would be fun to fight in light and thick fog, or from a weak drizzle to a complete sight-obscuring downpour. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

Actually, having a draw option at all is a good idea, and adding a shifting border where it is constituted a draw could help. Ladder points would be determined simply by the top half players with the most points and the bottom half players with the least points, not by team. The border could shift by adding a feature that the losing team has to earn at least 95% or more of the points that the enemy has earned. So if the winning team has 10.000 points, it is a draw the moment the losing team is within 9.500 points or more. This margin could then be altered, for each 4 players less then your enemy within the last 10 minutes of the game, you get 1% less on this margin. In a game where one team has 30 players and the losing team has 22 left in the last 10 minutes, the losing team will need only 93% or more of the points that the enemy has earned. Players that enter and leave within these 10 minutes are not counted as being on the team. Anyone who enters in the last 5 minutes will not be counted either as they have too little time to accumulate any points. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

All the more reason to ask for a server side option, and not deleting the entire points system altogether! (you could see it any way you like, the points system could be the server-side option or the building destruction thing could be the option). Anyways, what would determine the winner during a draw? points? most building damage dealed? had buildings on low % of health for the longest duration? (means they had the most chance of destroying a building). Placed most C4 on terminals? (allright, now I'm just mucking about)

True that. Still, I think that distractions from base destruction can be a good thing. Renegade always sparkled for me because you had so many options, so many things to keep track off that still went almost naturally. I have always played the original points system, and I enjoyed it. I might just be a fanboy who is screaming 'don't touch 'my' features!'. There is something to say to determine who wins by base destruction only, so perhaps a compromise? Have a serverside option to allow win by points or building destruction (with points only being a measure during draws). Yours sincerely, Demigan.

Isn't that wonderful? instead of mindelessly grinding that one goal you see in so many games (killing, killing and killing some more, although it's a bit more complex then that with only base destruction as a goal), you can choose your goal. With points, anything you do matters! Repair guys, plain tank driving, infantry support etc are all useful, even if your team lost more buildings then the other team they still matter. If you take that away, then repair crews for tanks and buildings don't get anything out of the game. Repairing tanks is a lousy job, with lots of danger and rarely any tense or difficult moments. The game does offer great defenders bonusses. All the more reason to make points the determining factor. If defenders can keep their buildings in tact anyway, then an attacking team should focus on killing enemies, earning more points, thus forcing the defenders to act and get out of their defencive position to earn points back. The attacking team has the best options to earn points: hitting buildings can quickly earn you more points then the enemy can from destroying your vehicle! Med: around 20 points each hit? 5 shots against a building and you nearly got more points then they can get from that tank! I think the current system works, and works great. It has a flaw (pointwhores), but if you create extras to make building destruction more important then building damage, this system works better (at least, I think it will) then having solely building destruction as a determining factor. Yours sincerely, Demigan.

There are many timed games I've played where one team won with only 1 or 2 buildings left with a huge gap between points, simply because they banded together and crushed anything that came near. I've never actually seen anyone quit do to a 'too big' rift in the teampoints, it only happens in the last 10 or 5 minutes, when they think they have no chance at all at winning through building destruction. Most people keep playing, however. You are right that it is unrewarding for players to lose 'just because' they busted their tank in the process, even though they were instrumental in destroying some buildings. But for any building you destroy, you gain an advantage over your enemy. If you bungle it despite that advantage and give too many points to your enemy, you deserve to lose. Nod would gladly lose his HON if they can destroy an armada of GDI tanks in return. It might be tough, the moment you destroy an enemy building they suddenly band together inside their base. But they could do that before their building was destroyed, and you could in fact do the same even if you destroyed more buildings. This is a game about teamplay and tactics, your enemy is allowed to dig in and work together to make a perfect bastion. You are allowed to use teamplay to crush such a bastion, and with good teamwork you can! Use tactics, lure them out before you rush, or just do some inspecting about what they got and create a perfect counter. Most games the winning team by points is also the team that destroyed the most buildings (the last time I played timed games at least), but points keep you wary about what you use and when. Yours sincerely, Demigan.