XD_ERROR_XD

I believe Agent said somewhere, sometime that they were also busy making UI changes. So let's talk about that! The biggest problem Renegade, and Renegade X faces in public servers is how much responsibility is required to lead a plan, and how much of a chore it can be sometimes. While I can't come up with perfect solutions to everything, I do think there are ways to make certain aspects of planning easier, like making it easier to see what person is using what tank and gun on the go, instead of driving back to base to use the Purchase Terminal to see the vehicles bought. Now bear with me because i'm kind of making stuff up as I go. Remember the icons used to display vehicles and characters in the Purchase Menu? Well, let's put those on the scoreboard on the top right of your HUD! https://i.imgur.com/TmU1lFV.jpg Now, anyone can see which character someone is using and what vehicle he is driving on the go! No button pressing required filling another big portion of your screen, it is very minimalistic and based on visual cues. The visual cues make it more simple to understand, because not every beginner may straight away understand what a Sakura is, but does understand straight away that a person has a big sniper rifle as their main weapon! Or a rocket launcher. You will also see several GDI opponents using maybe a medium tank, or has a repair gun as his main 'weapon'. Off course, not every opponent has their weapon and tank displayed on the UI, only the ones spotted, and that's a temporary thing too. Not only are visual cues more easy to understand than plaintext, but it may also help simplying other mechanics too! Because what would be easier to catch in the corner of your eye while you're fully focused in a tank, one of many lines of text on the top left saying there's 6 Mammoth Tanks spotted in the GDI base, or a transition from the previous screen to this: https://i.imgur.com/oeTSsbO.jpg comparison This may help simplfy matters for newer players I think. And it may take some pressure off people that are already occupied, like the persons trying to lead a rush! Off course, these images may find a good place at the chatbox too! Per example: from: This to: This! Dear Nigerian Prince, No, I am not interested in transferring your millions to another bank account. Please stop messaging me about it. or I am afraid you will have to be notepadded. I take the notepad very seriously, so think twice before sending another email asking the same thing. I have rejected you the last 20 times already, but I guess you didn't take the hint. ... Okay, that last bit was a joke. I just thought it looked a bit like an email header, or however you call it. And went on from there, because funny... right...? Ok i'll stop. So what do you guys think? Suggestions? Ideas? Terrible? Great?

Thanks for the feedback. My intent was not to specifically make RenX's vehicle combat a 1:1 copy of C&C Renegade's. I've heard of the stories of how UDK's vehicle physics is a mess, but I never knew how bad it was, or how the situation in Renegade X looked like exactly. I wanted to make this video just in case, so comparisons could be made more effectively. Renegade's physics was still also a mess at times but driving vehicles felt more natural to me than in RenX, even with how lightweight they all felt and stuff. If the vehicle adhesion issue could be mitigated, and maybe threaded tanks turned a bit slower when turning, it would already make me a much happier person. I believe optimising the collision boxes of each tank further could already greatly mitigate this, not only on the front of each tank, but also on the sides when tanks hit a wall from an angle. Just so it's more difficult for only the slightest portion of your tracks to hit a surface you don't want. Maybe vehicle blocker properties could be further adjusted too, but I have no knowledge of this. RenX has gone a long way, and it's still going, but my personal opinion is that vehicle physics do need more optimising if a 1.0 release is still on the schedule for this game. Again, thanks for all the responses!

Hey guys! It's been a long time since I've posted here! And i'm back with a couple of videos and feedback. (well, I was never gone, I was just lurking :p). This time, I'm going to talk in further detail on vehicle physics. Vehicle physics in Renegade X has always been an issue. And to me, their bumpyness and other issues just doesn't make it enjoyable to play. I've made some efforts to pinpoint the issues. I've gone in quite some detail on how C&C Renegade's vehicle physics works, and have finally finished my far overdue video on it. here it is: Yes, the video is a bit of a mess, but I was a bit too tired of editing it to make it any better than this. Sorry In case you're not willing to watch a 12 minute video, it explains in detail how parameters like total weight, aerodynamic drag, gravity scale, suspension spring and dampening constant and other factors make vehicles in C&C Renegade work. Don't get me wrong, physics in C&C Renegade is still quite a mess at times, but I do think they nailed it pretty well on the vehile aspect. I also drive a lot in the video, so it'll work as a nice reference to my comparisons of Renegade X's vehicle handling. So yes, I mentioned bumpyness in Renegade X. What causes this? Well, to bring across my point, I have recorded a few short clips. Here's the first one: From watching this video, it should be clear where all the weight of the Light Tank is placed. The thing wedges very easily, but doesn't move at all. This makes me assume that the weight of the vehicle is barely spread out past the middle. This needs to be worked on. IF this isn't the case, and the weight is spread out perfectly, there is quite a major issue on how objects react to directional forces, because a stationary light tank reacted to a horizontal force by moving vertically. I'll show another clip here to prove my point: By giving the rear tracks some air by going up this slope, and then immediately reversing, my vehicle is able to hold up my rear part of the vehicle in the air for far too long to be realistic. This further supports my theory of bad weight distribution amongst vehicles. However, you can also see another issue appearing in this video: How is my Light Tank able to accelerate at the same speed on two tracks, as it would do on four tracks? This makes no sense. Moving while only having grip on a slight portion of your tracks on a surface, somehow allows that part of your tracks to harness the full power of your tracks to move at the same speed. Yeah no, it really should be less grip = less speed, Having only one or two tracks on the floor should not mean that the other tracks somehow "gives" all of it's power to those tracks. Here's a related issue with tracks and power: Take a look at how at how fast i'm going at the beginning of the video. Then take a look at how much I slow down later, while making constant turns. My tank just doesn't slow down. Tracked tanks manage to turn by lowering the turn speed of the tracks on either the right or left side, which causes it to slow down significantly during turns. This tank drives as if it has wheels. Maybe this can be explained, by how infantry somehow run faster going uphill, which makes them still go at the same speed in the X(?)-axis. I guess you can put the same idea on tanks aswell. It basically needs work. But, there is one more issue regarding vehicles! (or, at least the Light Tank, i've only tested it on that vehicle so far): Notice how part of my vehicle clips into the Airstrip. Still remember the issue with tracks I mentioned earlier and how they're able to provide abnormal power? This makes it even easier for my tracks to grip unto surfaces they should not be able to touch, which makes them somehow able to climb near-vertical surfaces, like the base walls in whiteout. Also notice how this clipping causes my vehicle to sometimes stick into the wall? Yeah, this and the previous issue would be mostly mitigated by improvied collision detection (basically a larger collision model). So, in short, the suggested changes to vehicle handling/physics are: - A better weight distribution amongst tanks), and/or better response to directional forces; - An actual implementation of the Pythagorean theorem (just google it if you don't know what it means :P) - Calculation of vehicle torque based on amount of grip, instead of just having grip at all (or just give each track their own amount of power, instead of sharing them across); - Bigger/better collision models for vehicles. I Hope this helps clearing up some issues, and I'd love to hear your responses! Feedback is always welcome!

let the Renegade X chess battles begin! Checkmate! I have surrounded your Nod Construction yard with GDI Power Plants!

The forums are looking sexier than ever! But I will miss the old red and black layout for a little while, I got really used to it :<

??????? If we looked at this in 2016, there are 2 major servers still left in Renegade. One almost entirely based on custom maps and mods, the other is quite close to vanilla. The majority of the playerbase, after 14 years, still goes to the server with the original maps. Unlike 90% of all the custom maps, they are designed for low playercounts, but still worked in 30+ player games. But yes, There is still a popular server around with a lot of custom maps. But many of the maps are total crap. It's the mods that they adore the most: building turrets, calling backup, buying recon bikes and mutants. One other important reason they like this server aswell are the blatantly broken snipers and Stealth Tanks in the ridicilously oversized, open maps. This should be enough of an answer to this post, but i'm gonna continue anyhow. What keeps a few, but mostly well designed old maps more fresh than many, but badly designed custom maps? That is a good map rotation. Specifically something amongst the lines of 2 rush maps in a row, followed by a single base defence map to: 1) get a higher playercount with longer games, and 2) bring variety into games. The choice of each rush and base defence map is also important, as there are base defence maps with only one base entrance, and maps with multiple ones. A perfect example of this is City, and it worked (except for the broken stealth tank rushes in anything less than a 25v25). Sorry, but i just had to say it

Renegade is, and should always be a tank game first. playing AOW Vs. an infantry only team? Your silly choice to fight advanced infantry with advanced infantry, you're only giving them points by dying yourself, instead of scraping little bits off their health with cheaper or free infantry. Is the enemy team using Railguns only? then ignore the field entirely and bait them into the tunnels with free infantry rushes, to rush the field with enough heavy armour and engineers, and camp each tunnel entrance 24/7 with a MRLS/Arty. Remember that your team has a Harvester advantage, and that a 2.5 credit tick requires your enemy to wait 250 seconds before they can buy a 1k character. Running out of time? put a heavy-armoured tank at each tunnel entrance, preferably an Arty or Mammoth tank and rush the field until you grow completely sick of it. Donate a teammember all you have, and make him the dedicated vehicle buyer, making sure there are spare vehicles to pick up whenever yours gets destroyed and you die. Speed is imporant here, so make sure you put as much pressure on the enemy as you can. Once again, your team has the harvester advantage, the enemy will run out of money someday. You could even make the harvester lead the attack, soaking up the first bits of damage while you rush. Playing Marathon? Then it is more important to destroy the enemy team morally than economically. Don't like this? Then don't play Marathon, it's that simple. Once they're morally exhausted, susprise them with a full-scale attack and watch their defences wilter. Yes, destroying the enemy vehicle factory always leads to horrible stalemates, but this is where morals come to play. Psychological warfare works, make the enemy think there is no way out, control every base entrance for as long as you can, giving you the opportunity to launch well-timed attacks.

Your example is one where neither team has a minimap. Now take into account when one team has one, but the other team hasn't. No matter if you use it or not, it gives your team an advantage.

Hmmmmm, those UI changes.... Juicy!!! The veterancy system provides bonuses to an individual player for committing himself to the game in certain ways, And reset with each match, or possibly even with each death. Bonuses could be slightly cheaper purchases, slightly more health to infantry and/or vehicles, perhaps even a small renegeration for your units. It could also contain other things but it seems like they haven't been set in stone yet, i guess?

My leg! My arm!!! MY EYEBALL!!! Screenshake? AKA overpowered artyshake that turns you semi-blind whenever 2 arties shoot you at the same time? That effect can burn in hell for all i care, the shake on itself looked awesome but how annoying it would get in the battlefield... Or it gets rebalanced, that could also work!

Agreed! would be very nice to have, I often get disoriented while driving in first person.

It didn't get shot down, there was heavy debating but opinions were pretty much split 50/50. What I find the most strange is how people are willing to argue over something they love or hate with no compromise at all, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of a debate. Why not meet somewhere in the middle, changing free aim enough so I can still repair my tanks with it or something?

I honestly miss Free Aim more than the 180 turn, and I used both an awful lot. Free aim was not only useful to shoot enemies, but also allowed for a better line of sight of your surroundings while repairing friendly units. The 180 turn key i used a lot when trying to get somewhere unnoticed, it's so much easier than turning your mouse in each direction every seconds, which slows you down a lot aswell.

Agreed. Losing a building should really hurt a team. It was fine the way it was pre beta 4 - if you lose WF/airstrip, you have access to no vehicles at all. No Barracks/HoN - no advanced inf, not even low-tier. No ref - very, very low income. It will teach the team that lost a building to defend their base better next time and encourages players to infiltrate/rush (-> teamwork!) because it is actually rewarding and there is an advantage to be felt. I feel like there were way more organized rushes in earlier versions of the game than there are now and I'm fairly certain that is (mostly) down to these changes. Making buildings recoverable would totally be detrimental to the game IMO. It would only become more stalematey. It would also enforce less teamwork because players would be asking themselves, "why should we even destroy a building if they can just bring it back?". I'm still for the opinion that a destroyed vehicle or infantry factory should make their prices increase by every purchase by a set amount. Because let's be honest here, every setback you take promotes camping in some way, but indeed it's to easy to camp at the current situation. Camping on the long run should be not be viable on the long run, and definately discouraged. If you don't do anything useful with the last vehicles that you can buy, It's your own fault for losing the game. However, i feel like recent changes have been trying to accomodate to two different game modes entirely, AOW and Marathon. But they simply don't mix. I think that Marathon and AOW itself needs a change before we can work on other gameplay mechanics. Many pro-marathon players feel like AOW is unfair because it allows teams to win that obviously would have lost in a Marathon battle (by camping). pro-AOW players don't like the fact that campers (possibly caused by that their team has been crippled) allows the game to go on for far too long. So what about this? Why not extend the time limit by 10 minutes if a building gets destroyed, to allow a team that worked his butt of to destroy it a fairer chance to end the game they want it? Should make camping a less viable option. But what if the campers still win? What I often see is that the people complaining about camping, are the ones that give them free points by hopelessly attacking them (we're still talking AOW here). In the original game (I don't know the numbers in Renegade X), you need more than 30 free infantry kills (!) with a 1k character to earn back the points you would otherwise have given them for dying once. When I see a camping team, i camp myself to bait them into taking the field and counter-attack. If they don't take the bait I instead destroy my own vehicle and trade my character in for the sweet freedom of a soldier. But what about marathon? Well, a while back i've heard about RypeL working on something to make the game more evolving but why not chip in my own two cents here aswell? We could do something with polls, After an hour every 30 minutes you could make a poll which gives everyone 1000 credits. Or, you could make building health degrade by 1% a minute after 30 minutes to a minimum of 20%? But i still think that my first suggestion, making every purchase more expensive than the previous one is a really good alternative. What do you guys think?

I Like!

A decent 3D printer costs way too much for the average person currently. It's only worth buying if you have big plans with them, otherwise just wait another 5 years

XCC utilities is used in many C&C games, which is used to unpack many of the textures and sounds as far as a i know from the always.dat file and other files. I don't know how you're supposed to unpack/extract building models but if henk says it, i believe him! ^^

hey b0ng, here's a copy of the v0.55 launcher, this one has a couple more fixes: http://file-server.download/Renegade-X/LUNCHER/RenxLauncher-v055.zip/RenxLauncher_v055.zip

Some pretty good ideas you've got there. I'd like to add that it's still difficult to notice when your vehicle is critically low on health. An additional health-popup when you take damage or are being repaired when your armour is depleted would be pretty nice, just like how the original game had. I thought RypeL was already working on this, but having another reticle on your screen showing where the bullet will actually travel would be really nice to have. Sometimes it's pretty difficult to judge in vehicles whether your shell will hit the target, fly over it or hit the ground below it.

Remote/easy/hard acess :Are you refering these as infantry only? Yeah. Some stuff was left out because i didn't want to make it too lengthy of a post.

easier infiltration does not mean more infiltration. Let me sum this one up: Easy infiltration routes = more camping = More difficult to infiltrate. Hard infiltration routes = less camping = Less difficult to infiltrate. ...If only matters were this simple. So let me put some detail in this formula: Easy infiltration routes + Easy access = No way in hell you're getting through. Easy infiltration routes + Remote access = It will be camped by designated miners, defenders, etc. Timing and Mind games becomes important. Hard infiltration routes + Easy access = More crowded but less defended. Enemies are less likely to see you coming from here. A smart person however would realise you'd be attempting this route once the AGT starts firing at his tunnel entrance, and will camp it. Hard infiltration routes + Remote access = Barely occupied, many people will not even know about this infiltration route's existence. It will be possible to take this route multiple times without being camped. Now we've got a lot more detailed idea of how infiltration routes work! But we're still not there. Let's make it even more complex! 1 Easy infiltration route + Easy access = No way in hell you're getting through. More people will go through the same tunnel/take the same route. Multiple easy infiltration routes + Easy access = Still crowded, but gives more opportunity for the solo sneaker to time his attacks. Attack 3 times from route 1, make the defender thinks he's going there again and then take the second one. May work, but unlikely. 1 Easy infiltration route + Remote access = You're only getting through if the enemy has the majority of his troops located somewhere else. Multiple easy infiltration routes + Remote access = Relatively easy access to enemy base from multiple angles, hard to defend from, this could end up in a huge campfest in high playercount battle or massive building destruction. This is not desirable. 1 Hard infiltration route + Easy access = Would still be defended, as it's the only place where you can infiltrate their base from. As it's going to be crowded, forget it unless you're playing in a server with less than 10 people. Multiple hard infiltration routes + Easy access = Very unlikely to be both mined at the same time. Multiple routes means the area is less crowded. Could be attempted. 1 Hard infiltration route + Remote access = Enemy is less likely to go here. Unless the route has been taken multiple times or the enemy knows of the route, it will most likely not be mined. Could be attempted, but only the first couple of attempts may work. Multiple hard infiltration routes + Remote access = A skilled sneaker's paradise. Easy to play mindgames with the enemy, Nobody else is going to attempt all the routes it is very unlikely all entrances are camped, or would be mined. Could be attempted for a long period of time. Now, for all that i said above, you have to take into consideration that you might not be the only one to get into that tunnel or take that route. Snipers love remote places where they can shoot, or crowded areas where they can fire lots. This once again attracts attention and makes sneaking by yourself even more difficult. Take all these possibilites mentioned above into consideration when trying to make a map sneak-able.

This is because the only person that actually should be talking in TS is the commander. if a teammember is going to talk in TS, it better be urgent or important. This way people would be more likely to listen to TS because the messages said on there generally become more useful. Once again, the commander should also read the messages in chat and relay on TS on what should be done with it. If someone says in the chat that there are enemy vehicles on the right flank where-as the commander's strategy leaves the right flank open, it's up for the commander to say: "we need meds on the right flank, if you're still in base or nearby cover it" Instead of sending messages, you can also hold Q to spot a group of enemies, which then will be shown on the minimap. You could make an agreement with the commander that when you spot an enemy, you also press ctrl + 0 (Enemy spotted!) straight after to signal that this is an important message. Once again, this prevents a single sense like your ears from being overloaded. This is also why the commander should mainly command, and not be super-engaged in tank battles. He needs his focus on let his team fight the best possible battle.

Asteroids? Funny that you talk about it, someone actually made a re-imagined version of Asteroids in C&C Renegade! Take a look: XZPT1ZB8enM Allright, back to dreams... I used to dream the most insane stuff when i was little, but i only dreamt about Renegade once, actually. I was in a random building with a small squad following me, i shot this flamethrower and hid in a corner afterward. Seconds later a Chem trooper attacked me, for some reason i did nothing for a couple of seconds until i shot him. The scary thing about this is that i actually felt the damage-over-time effect. Afraid as my little self was for pain at that time, i tried to escape by climbing up a chimney(!), after which the game took on a bird's eye view and i managed to reach the top. After that, the dream ended.

Hehehe, you could say so. But if the players don't take the game seriously, they won't take their commander seriously either. I don't know about the current mentality of players when they play a PUG but this definitely needs to be there, otherwise you cannot have a high-quality game.

I don't really play any PUGs from Renegade X, but i do play a lot of competitive games in World of Tanks and have played a handful in the original game. I can say that the concept of field commanding means that there is only one commander, which is the absolute leader for the game. there are multiple things to remember when playing "competitive" games: - Listen to your commander. PERIOD. If he tells you to jump off a cliff, you do so, and nothing else. Complaints and/or Feedback follow after the game. - be simply quiet if you have nothing useful to say. You can say "1 shotgunner in Nod side tunnel", but such information is rarely relevant and will only flood the teamspeak channel. A commander only has 1 set of ears and is already under a lot of pressure, often it's better to simply press Q to spot, and let the commander decide if the info is relevant. This will create a balance between visual feedback and audial feedback, so neither of your senses get overloaded. Voice for important messages, Text for un-important messages. - sometimes it's a better idea for the commander to command only, and not carry his team. The more he has to focus on fighting, the less focus he/she has left to tell the others how to fight. Sometimes it's simply better to mine as a commander, or drive around in an APC, or simply repair vehicles so he can listen and read other's messages more easily. One of the nice things about competitive games in Renegade (X) is that each player has relatively much freedom to do whatever he wants. If the player is not given commands, he/she can do pretty much whatever he wants, as in World of Tanks, getting no commands would pretty much mean "do not change what you're currently doing." So if you were never given a command specifically, you wouldn't even be allowed to move. I believe that RenX PUGs could really take on a new level if these guidelines would be taken more seriously. You can have casual fun in a PUG but there are only a few things that feel better than defeating a worthy opponent after an exciting battle.