XD_ERROR_XD

I simply do not want to play RenX through Steam if it forces me to change my username. Call it a pet peeve, but if RenX would enforce Steam without being able to set my in-game name without changing my Steam name, i will quit the game and never return. I just don't want to change a name i already set, and i never will.

There was a fix or was it fixed? I don't recall anything in any changelog mentioning this. Anyhow, cool to know this is going to get fixed someday!

Could be related to a bug that i found a while ago: OS2r4uSxrsE The reticle does not seem to aim at the meshes itself, but at the invisible walls that detect collision. The reticle automatically aims for the closest collision wall it can see on the game screen(!) (which once again explains the difference between what you see and what you are shooting at), which sometimes causes some nasty effects. what should happen is that the reticle should aim at the furthest collision wall or mesh it can find on, once again, the game screen. If collision walls would be given a colour and had no transparency, the reticle should be aiming for the furthest collision wall it can see.

Although these ragdoll effects often got me a bit annoyed by how extreme they are... Sometimes i can appreciate the plain sillyness that comes with it. You want a good coaster ride? Don't worry, just get yourself killed and get stuck between some walls!

You can still do this when a game just stared. but you shouldn't do this when the game is already at full speed. You see, the matchmaker automatically puts people that just joined in the team with the least players. So, if you would switch to the other team, the offset in players does not get filled. Yes, you cannot teamswitch when there are too many people on the other team, but see it as an opportunity to learn some new tactics

Which was already possible by one tech/hottie placing mines in the tunnel and/or repairing his/her teammates. I remember the changelist said mines no longer get triggered through walls, right? This would already make it more difficult to get in a building because you basically have to get through more mines' worth. A repair tool is a great counter to this. But off course, often, items that barely have been tested have to be tweaked. What i would like to see more instead of lower ammo, is a higher ammo usage on certain items. I don't know how this could be made possible but it would make disarming mines more difficult without compromising the repair tool's usefulness for other units.

I would give Kane unlimited health because Kane lives in death!

Oh but that looks awesome! But what if you tried making the bottom one glow a little bit more, like the top RenX logo? Hmmm...

I honestly like this middle one more than the rest. the top and the bottom one just feel so generic and not very RA2-like.

What if you put the MCT's of the Allied Power Plant on the gaps between the towers, and make it a walk-able path with a concete floor? I would use a basement as you said for the Soviet Tesla Reactor to put the MCT in, containing some controls and whatnot as a decration.

They were never good as a total catch-all anyway. Already pretty good as an "alert" if they go down in number, an advance warning system, a not so silent alarm. Now, there are 2 kinds of units. Units that can bypass the mines but are very vulnerable to gunfights, and units that excel in gunfights and die to 1 single mine (2 if you paid good for it). Yes, you can diffuse them overall faster, but iirc, the total diffuse time for 1 mine went up by it's damage, so basically, each mines is 2.5 mines, and each mines takes 2x longer to diffuse, shaving off .5 of the time that would have been added. Then there is the fact, that the repair tool, unlike the gun, has only the range to stand in front of the mine and diffuse, while only certain characters have EMP nades which are AntiTank so you need to borrow help to deploy EMP instead of 1 class having all of these. All of this, coupled with the fact that engineers are no longer solo artists so "losing a few mines" no longer meant a hotwire snuck in and destroyed a building. (it could mean that, but with firepower and speed decrease they should have been caught) I really like the fact that they rebalanced mines to deal more damage, but not as many can be placed. The fact that mines take so long disarm with repair tools, and that they're so easy to place in chokepoints really did screw over some maps in ways of sneaking. grab a 10v10 Under where the infantry tunnel was mined and your chances of sneaking in were made very small. You could never disarm them on time. So, unless the total health of mines increases, it should give sneakers at least a little bit more time to get in. They're going to need this anyhow because mines no longer explode to units that are behind cover, if this was at all possible. The detonation distance was already quite small, so i honestly don't see much use in this change. They still dealt 50% damage through walls, something vehicles could use quite well in that direction (hint hint yosh ^^)

If i see someone joining a server with the sole purpose of goofing off for an extended period of time, i would consider it Team Hamper and promptly kick them after a couple of warnings. Yes, people get bored at times, which causes them to kill time with stacking APCs but if you really feel the urge to do such stuff for let's say over 5 minutes, go somewhere else where you are not such a nuisance to others. you are using up valuable teamspace and turning a '10v10' into basically a '9v10'. an 8v10 i would personally consider an unfair fight, and the only thing once you need to basically lose by goofing off is an AFKer on your team, or a friend you persuaded into doing silly things. Roleplaying? nothing wrong with. Weird fetishes? I don't care, everybody is weird in their own way. As long as you don't bother others, and you are bothering your own team by filling up space and bothering the enemy team by taking away their chance of having a challenging and even battle.

(if this is what you're talking about) The PT UI does not show what armour and weapons the enemy units are using. So you would still have to memorise what units have what equipped.

Oh my... those infantry changes definitely got me intruiged1 Is there going to be any way to recognise who is wearing what kind of armour in-game, except for plain memorisation? maybe a small F, K or L in italic above the unit name? The proximity mine changes got me a bit worried. But, i haven't been able to try them yet so i'll wait to see how they work out in the end! I love the changelist so far!

Oh, i like this! I Definitely will be using this. Thanks!

Oh my, so classy...! Nice picture

Yes Zupaaahtoll, thx Yosh! +1

in that sense you're saying Westwood is always disappointing... Oh, oops! edited my previous post.

Oh Westwood, you never disappoint.

I like the idea! Even though i only once played Red Alert 1 multiplayer, i had been mapping and modding for the second one. And trust me, the RA1 community is a lot larger than you'd expect: http://cncnet.org/network-status

World of Tanks? I think you're talking War Thunder here

One of the things that i don't like about beacons is how far their sounds can be heard. This isn't necessarily bad but there's 2 disadvantages to this: 1) a person might hear the beacon near a building where it actually isn't placed, and spams radio commands that it is there, 2) the sound can be heard quite well from it's maximum hearing distance, but barely gets louder when you get closer, until you're really close to it. The fact that it's about as loud from multiple distances makes it really difficult to guess it's exact direction, making you run circles without finding it at all sometimes. 1) is tied together with 2) and isn't really an issue with the beacon itself, but would be fixed if 2) was worked on. I believe many more nukes would be found quicker if 2) would be reworked, possibly saving many buildings where they otherwise would've been destroyed.

... Killing off one's chances to attack will promote defence. There's simply no way around this. if you lose WF/airstrip, but have still that one chance to effectively assault the base before the favors shift to the other team, you'd better take it or else. This has proven itself countless times over time. If a team loses a building to a rush (not a siege), they often get triggered to counterattack as an impulse. This is simply a reflex, it's part of human nature! If you actually care about winning, you will do this! If you don't care, you'll just keep on sniping or shotgunner, whatever you feel like. If there is no more reason to not risk it all, because you're going to lose the game anyhow if you do nothing, then why not do it. Take the chance and maybe, you will be able to break the enemy team and turn the tides. If you fail, and camp, the enemy team can still rush and focus on the remaining vehicles until they become too expensive to purchase. Yes, there are always those select people that will spam mines, camp the base with an APC for 30 minutes and fake AFK so they can attack SBHs whenever they see mines exploding. But an overwhelming majority would be willing to try at least something when they are suddendly confronted with the odds they are facing. You just need that one guy that is willing to lead the rush, and the rest will follow like a herd of sheep.

In which way does this promote camping more than any other method? In which situation where vehicles are really hard/impossible to obtain/keep, will there not be camped? At least this situation still allows for the opportunity to keep on fighting, but will still be properly penalized for losing your building. It's a great balance between the two.