TheGroundsKeeper
-
Posts
292 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Downloads
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by TheGroundsKeeper
-
-
Well id suggest the possibility to make steam enabled servers only, so you can ban pr account, steam enabled servers could then have a shared accountban list to effectiveley ban cheaters across servers.
I would personally never play on servers that are not controlled like that in some way if i had the possibility, I saw this "speedhack" used just today and it instantly made me not wanted to play anymore.
-
The best way to learn to play Renegade is to play for your team. And by that I mean, do every thing you can to make your teammate's lives easier. Be aware of what they are doing and support them. Do some repairs. Cover beacons. If you're in a tank and an ally is about to explode, drive your tank in front and absorb the hit for him.
Learn to play for your team and your team will, in return, play for you. After a while, you will pick up the ins and outs of what to do and what not to do.
Conversely, you should also actively do whatever you can to make enemy player's experiences terrible. Block them off at every turn. Kill their harvester on sight. Snipe high cost infantry.
This is the best advice in the entire thread.
Thumbs up -
Be mindfull of the battle, dont bring a mammoth to a chokepoint map, you will delay the entire siege and possibly kill everyone.
While mammoths are the strongest health and dmg wise they are the weakest in mobility and cost wise, you can rareley escape in a mammoth, +it is easy to hit with everything, and it is crispy free cake points to shoot at for the enemy team.
I have seen alot of GDI loses the last couple of days because of overuse on mammoths, sometime the faster and smaller medium tank is just better.
Gunner rushes are the most easy and fast way to take down a building get 5-10 in a group and take down the airstrip from fx. tunnels on fields. in seconds.
Take 3 sbh to a building and plant timed c4. Just stand back and wait while the c4 runs out and destroys the building with the enemy having no clue.
-
After 1000+ hours in the old renegade i can honestly say that i think you are wrong.
Me and my old buddies has countless of times employed both tactics and strategy to win games up to 128 players in The classic renegade.
If any, the more players force more strategy and tactics since you then just cant wals into the base with nukes and hotties. I will actually require real cordination and effort to do anything + a good amount of patience.
Not all people like this, and that is ok, hell maybe the entire game is not for you, but to say that there is no tactic and strategic elements in renegade or renegade-x, sounds like you simply have not played it enough to actually know what the game is about or what is going on in the game.
-
HACKS
in Renegade X
Well i did a 46-3 this night, not that hard with all the new people standing still at hilltops and shizzle just waiting to be boinked.
I even had a 4 kill in one ramjet mag.
Not that i will deny that maybe there is a cheat like aimbot already, but if i can pull off a 46-3 then, i can imagine a more skilled player with better mouse and reflexes could be able to pull off a 100-3
-
Wouldn't it be too overcrowded? I mean the maps are not big enough to support 64, in my opinion, but 128? Darn! There needs to be space for maneuvering, or it will be just a meat grinder, which I'm not a fan of.
Depends on what type of game you fancy, the infantry fights on maps like island goes to epic proporsions in the tunnels. Ive seen the best coordinated attacks and teamplay ever in any game ever in theese games,
5x Sbh nukes at the same time on top of a 15x flamerush? -->128player games.
7x APC rush full of hotwires= --> 128player games again.
30-40x infantry rush on the obelisk of light --> 128players...
Insane gunner rushes.
The massive games has been by far the most fun i ever had in any fps. <3
-
This happened after i used the "open" console command.
2x speed and then white screen.
-
But it is. If you are inside a building, you are there to kill the building. If your intent was to kill infantry and you came to the one place on the map where your enemy has the biggest advantage, well, you really made a poor decision there.
Gotta agree with Letty here,
even if you made it all the way to the base on your own it is totally pointless since it requires atleast 3 timed c4 to take down a building. So unless you go as a hotwire or tec, just dont go alone. Wait for people.
Try going as 3 sbh and place the timed c4 and stay stealthed as long as possible after placement, only break stealth if needed. I even done this with basic infantry just hiding in a corner til the c4 went off.
If you can't mow down 1 unit with 3 units because he stands at a panel or atleast keep him busy till the c4 explodes, then it might not be the guy at the panel, or the panel itselfs fault.
Just dont count on this ever being changed, because it probably wont.
-
Ideally 40 player servers shouldn't be switching back and forth between maps that can barely handle 12v12 and maps that can go up to 32v32. I'd say that map size and layout should be the determining factor for vehicle limit over pure player count.
I think it should be up to the server owners, no one forces you to join a crowded server, i personally think all the maps are better with 100+ players, wich were possible in the classic renegade.
Last night i was playing on a 40player 14tank cap server. Made field an amazing rush map, with loads of great attempts from both sides. In the end we won with a full capped flametank rush.
It is basically about finding a server that fits your playstyle.
For me less than the current cap is just no go for me, and i will always go for the most crowded server, i simply find it more fun
-
A classic move in many fps games, but yea that is real fast in that clip, will wreck tanks with 2-4 peeps doing that lol
-
I understand and appreciate the aspect of dedication to victory, and the soccer analogy is good. However, even in soccer points are scored. My complaint here would be akin to 90% of soccer games ending 0-0... it is not much fun to play in this situation. In regards to the nuking, I don't mind it at all - it was my expectation that stealthing was Nod's intended route to victory. What my underlying concern here was that the stealth-nuking seemed to be the ONLY way to win in my experience, and even then it only works if there is no AGT around.
Give it abit of time, till people learn the flow of the game, ofc sometimes you end up in a game where initiative lacks on both sides, but of all the games i have been playing yesterday and all night(on my 23th hour now), i ony been in few games where we did not end the game with 2 to all buildings tipped over
Take this awesome flametank rush last night effectively disabling agt, few minutes later we had wiped the base
-
It is not because the "gameplay is old", it is because the Original ren was made back when games were made to please a certain group of people, not desperatly try make every halfwit content.
I think there is a rason retrogaming has become so popular the last couple of years, that is because poeple is starting to realize that grenade jumping trough lava all the way to school IS where true gameplay has its heart.
-
I managed to refill the ramjet at the base 3 times and they never moved from this spot
-
I'm new to Renegade, though I'm familiar with the C&C setting. I like the gameplay design here, but obviously can't comment on how similar or dissimilar it is to the original. I've never been a big player of the multiplayer portions of shooters before.
I've played a fair bit the last few nights, and I realize that some aspects of the "metagame" will change as players become more acquainted with the mechanics. However, every game I've played except for one ended by time limit, usually with an interminable meat grinder of vehicles at the front of one base, with snipers dotting the landscape killing each other and the engineers. I have no problem with that battlefield set-up, but it never goes anywhere.
On maps without a defensive structure, I feel as though Nod has the advantage because every once and awhile they will be able to nuke a building using a SBH, but it's relatively easy to keep GDI from taking down a structure. With a defensive structure, it is very rare for anyone to lose a building. The last game I played had the best teamwork I've experienced yet (was GDI on Field), and we still went nowhere (actually we narrowly lost by points at the end because our final rush attempts fed so many points). On a 20 person team, we had 3 APCs with 3 people each (pretty good) storm the Hand of Nod, while under massive covering fire from MRLSs and Mammoths. Keep in mind that you only need to cover about 25 feet of ground in the obelisk's vision to reach the Hand's door. Three of us survived to enter the Hand, one was cut down by infantry, and the surviving two walked into some prox mines by the MCT. We spent a lot of credits and got nothing... several times. Sustained vehicle assaults failed as well, because even under heavy fire a building could easily be kept topped off by engineers. Keep in mind that because of GDI's vehicle advantage on this map Nod was lacking a harvester and the silo almost the entire game.
I'm being fairly verbose here, so I will just summarize my feelings so far:
1) Airstrikes weren't mentioned, I think the devs are looking at those anyway
2) Defensive structures are perhaps too powerful. They could be adjusted by possibly just having a longer cooldown between attacks, so massive rushes can get through lacking significant resistance, as I believe they should.
3) Alternatively, maybe reduce the rate at which repair guns heal buildings. It would make it at least semi-viable for GDI to siege a base with their vehicles, as an alternative to Nod's stealthy beacon-dropping. Keep in mind that players could always splurge for the high-tier repairing units to pick up slack.
I of course must admit that my experiences may have been totally unlike what you all have played thus far, but I wanted to give my perspective as an outsider with a fresh view of the landscape here.
It being hard to tip over the enemy base is what makes Renegade a rush in the long run.
It's like Soccer vs handball, sure there are alot of action and goals in handball, but the rush of a soccer goal is just 100 times bigger, because it is much harder to achieve.
I do agree though that in smaller games(less than 50) with no base defense, the sbh-nuke spam and stealth tanks often makes nod win, but at 64, it is much less(more defenders at all time) an in bigger games like 100+players(if they solve the UDK issue), the issue becomes non existent.
-
Are you guys sure it is program related and not hardware? I just played on a marathon 40player server with 14 vehicle cap and 60mine cap, and loads of rushes, with no rubberbanding whatsoever.
And the crash before i was on the Jelly server and it rubber banded with a 7 cap and less players O_o
-
While i do agree on that the "Why is this not bf4" whining is annoying, and alot of people complains before they have got used to the gameplay of Ren-x, I still think theese post are bad for the community and the game overall.
People might sit with real issues and will be afraid of speaking up about it, + it makes the community feel very hostile, and it would be a shame if it ends up with us chasing away new potential renegade fans.
We just have to trust that the Devs wont fall in the "generic try to please all" trap, and are able to seee trough all the BS to the real issues at hand.
-
It is from A UX book we were using at 1st semester of my bachelor
It is a great example of the most common mistake made by software developers today. -
Because it makes no real difference if the other team is already in your base.
Ii never ever seen this as an issue, and i played litterally thousands of hours in the classic ren, and it is the first time ever i heard of people complaining about it.
-
Tbh i dont understand the whole "we need to pleasure all" mentality, 99% of games today tries that and they end up in a category where everyone says "Meeeh i guess it is ok" and no one thinks it is great.
And besides i rather have a small and mature playerbase than have the quality thinned out by the bad attitude i habe seen in games like BF.
-
I love the sieges, nothing more satisfying that breaking up a siege or breaking up a siege breaking attempt
-
I played since 2002, and in the closed beta, and since it came out, and i have not had this issue...
Must be a single event of a real pro terminal user.
-
place a c4 on him?
-
Fuck 64 players is way to much as it is. Performance of the game turns to shit at that many players
Well i have a flat 62 frames at all times, no one says you should join a big server if you dont like it, but for people with no fps issues and who like bigger the challanges the big games gives, it would be nice, as of now you can choose to join a small game, but i cannot choose to join a big one.
-
Unreal probably can't support a 128 player game with any form of stability or reasonable performance for the average player. It's possible to implement, but ultimately would not be worth it. Not to mention most of these maps probably wouldn't be able to handle it anyways. It just wouldn't be efficient use of dev time to work on it.
Well i dissagree on that, it was the best games for me and the core of my renegade experience, but if it is not possible it is not possible.
But if it is possible it should be looked into when all the bugs has been sorted out.
And i can agree on that balancing out airstrikes and fixing rubberbanding tanks it a tad more important as of now, since this is gamebreaking issues that needs to be adressed first.
GDI early game balance problems
in Feedback & Bug Reports
Posted
I totally agree with the McFarland unit, he is extreemely lame to meet as any infantry to big dmg too big area of effect and way to big range. He is the star example of what renegade shouldnt be.
The SBH are just fine, they fill their role in really good, imo.